Access to Palliative Care for Cancer Patients Living in a Northern and Rural Environment in Ontario, Canada: The Effects of Geographic Region and Rurality on End-of-Life Care in a Population-Based Decedent Cancer Cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to palliative care has been associated with improving quality of life and reducing the use of potentially aggressive end-of-life care. However, many challenges and barriers exist in providing palliative care to residents in northern and rural settings in Ontario, Canada. AIM: The purpose of this study was to examine access to palliative care and associations with the use of end-of-life care in a decedent cohort of northern and southern, rural and urban, residents. DESIGN: Using linked administrative databases, residents were classified into geographic and rural categories. Regression methods were used to define use and associations of palliative and end-of-life care and death in acute care hospital. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A decedent cancer cohort of Ontario residents (2007-2012). RESULTS: Northern rural residents were less likely to receive palliative care (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-0.97). Those not receiving palliative care were more likely to receive potentially aggressive end-of-life care and die in an acute care hospital (adjusted OR = 1.20, 95% CI: 1.02-1.41). CONCLUSIONS: Palliative care was significantly associated with reduced use of aggressive end-of-life care; however, disparities exist in rural locations, especially those in the north. Higher usage of emergency department (ED) and hospital resources at end of life in rural locations also reflects differing roles of rural community hospitals compared with urban hospitals. Improving access to palliative care in rural and northern locations is an important care issue and may reduce use of potentially aggressive end-of-life care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".