Palliative and Hospice Care in Correctional Facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The need for palliative and hospice care for persons with life-limiting conditions who are incarcerated is increasingly common in correctional facilities worldwide. OBJECTIVE: Through a family nursing lens, we critically analyze the unique challenges experienced by those requiring palliative care while incarcerated. Key concerns and implications for nursing are illustrated through the discussion of a representative case scenario. METHODS: The case scenario was developed based on the findings of a scoping review of academic and gray literature (such as policy documents and editorials) about palliative, hospice, and end-of-life care in corrections. RESULTS: The case scenario highlights multilevel barriers that were identified, including the individual, relational, institutional, and sociocultural contexts of palliative care in correctional facilities. Evidence is presented of how integration of a family nursing perspective can enhance specialized palliative and hospice care services in correctional settings. CONCLUSIONS: By applying a family nursing approach, nurses practicing with correctional populations can ensure persons with life-limiting illnesses are not denied their right to appropriate end-of-life care by playing a key role in addressing barriers to palliative and hospice care access in corrections. Specific attention to relational issues and holistic care can contribute to enhanced palliative and hospice care, greater dignity in dying, and improved family and peer outcomes, which have benefits for individuals, families, communities, and society. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Through the case scenario, we illustrate real issues emerging in correctional contexts and offer evidence of how family nursing relational principles can be applied to promote adequate palliative and hospice 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 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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".