PALLIATIVE CARE FOR THE HOMELESS: A SCOPING REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Homeless persons have higher burden of disease and mortality rates than the housed population; however, traditional models of palliative care are inaccessible to many dying homeless persons. There is a dearth of literature on the palliative needs and preferences of homeless persons and effective palliative care interventions for this population. A scoping review was undertaken to examine the literature regarding the deployment of palliative care services for homeless persons. Five medical databases, seven social science databases, and four grey literature databases were searched under the guidance of two University of Toronto librarians to identify literature on palliative care for homeless persons. The search resulted in 68 relevant titles. Six main themes emerged from the review: 1) characteristics of homeless persons who required end-of-life care; 2) preferences and concerns of homeless persons approaching end-of-life; 3) the role of spirituality for homeless persons at end-of-life; 4) barriers to care at the patient, provider and institutional/structural levels; 5) inclusive models of palliative care; and 6) implications for policy and practice at end-of-life. Homeless persons face considerable barriers to accessing appropriate end-of-life care. Several areas of improvement were identified for care providers and policymakers. Future research should focus on evaluating the effectiveness and financial viability of models of care, the perspectives of homeless persons regarding palliative care, and the unique needs and preferences of cultural and ethnic minority homeless populations.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".