MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2971736162 · doi:10.1097/md.0000000000016692

Bereavement practices employed by hospitals and medical practitioners toward attending funeral of patients

2019· review· en· W2971736162 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kwangtaek Kim, Leonid Churilov, Andrew T. Huang, Laurence Weinberg

Bibliographic record

VenueMedicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAttendanceFamily medicineObservational studyPhoneCross-sectional studySpecialtyInclusion (mineral)MEDLINENursingPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: To ascertain bereavement practices offered by hospitals and medical practitioners (MPs), factors that influence the likelihood of MPs' involvement in funeral attendance, the benefits and barriers to attendance to a patient's funeral as perceived by MPs and the rate of attendance to patients' funeral by MPs. DESIGN: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, PubMed, and Google Scholar were searched with a systematic search structure for randomized controlled trials, comparative observational studies, case series, cross-sectional studies, editorials, and letters. The search was limited to English only. The study was registered with Prospero (Registration Number: CRD42018095368). RESULTS: A total of 381 articles were identified with 46 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. Of the 46, 16 were editorials and 12 were letters. Eighteen were cross-sectional studies conducted in the United States, Canada, Australia, Israel, and Ireland. Year of publication ranged from 1990 to 2017. Of these, 12 were quantitative, 3 were qualitative, and 3 were mixed-method studies. Two of the cross-sectional studies involved family members of deceased patients while others involved MPs. Bereavement practices offered by hospitals included memorial services, letters, and services provided by bereavement coordinators. Bereavement practices employed by MPs included answering or making phone calls, attending family meetings, and sending condolence letters. MPs' attendance at a patient's funeral was influenced by MPs' gender, age years of experience the medical specialty. Perceived benefits of MPs' attendance at a patient's funeral included providing support to the family, extending the professional relationship, illustrating respect to the patient and the family, resolving guilt and personal growth. Barriers to the attendance included a lack of time, blurring of professional boundaries, personal discomfort with death, emotional arousal, and discouragement by colleagues. General practice had an attendance rate of 71%. Attendance rates for palliative care, oncology, and psychiatrists ranged from 63% to 81%, 7.1% to 67%, and 15% to 67%, respectively. Intensivists had an attendance rate of 22%. CONCLUSION: Several bereavement practices are provided by hospitals and MPs. Funeral attendance is an uncommon bereavement practice. MPs' attitudes toward attending a patient's funeral are understudied in many specialties. Patient factors that influence MPs' participation in bereavement practices are poorly understood.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.355 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedicineSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207