On the Margins of Death: A Scoping Review on Palliative Care and Schizophrenia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schizophrenia is a serious chronic mental illness that results in marginalization and stigma for sufferers. It is the seventh leading cause for disability worldwide. The symptoms of the illness, including hallucinations, delusions, and extremely disordered thinking and behavior, may also introduce barriers to accessing treatment, education, housing, and employment. Little is known about end-of-life care for individuals with schizophrenia. To address this gap, a scoping review was conducted to enhance understanding of hospice and palliative care for patients with schizophrenia. From this scoping review, 342 unique titles and abstracts were identified through a search of 20 databases, including 11 social science databases, 6 medical databases, and 3 gray literature databases. A total of 32 articles met the inclusion criteria and the following 4 themes were identified: Stigma affecting quality of care and access to care; Issues related to consent and capacity for the patient's end-of-life care decisions and to appoint substitute decision makers; Best practices for psychosocial interventions, pharmacology, family and health-care collaborations, goals of care, setting, and smoking; and Barriers to care, including setting, communication, provider education, and access to care. The review suggests the importance of mandatory interdisciplinary training practices and policy standards outlining cooperative communication across health-care providers. It highlights gaps in evidence-based research on psychosocial interventions and collaborative frameworks to enable the provision of quality end-of-life care for individuals with schizophrenia.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".