The Efficacy of Palliative Care Education and Training in Primary Care Settings: A Scoping Review of the Literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Primary care providers play an important role in palliative care service provision. A scoping review of the literature was undertaken in an attempt to gain insight into and awareness of palliative education and training needs in primary care settings. Four scientific databases covering the medical and social science fields were searched, alongside Grey literature. A total of 5,109 hits were generated, leading to 2,875 titles for individual review. Of these, 33 articles were included in the final review. Five major themes were identified: (1) communication skills; (2) knowledge of spiritual/psychosocial needs; (3) pain and symptom management; (4) cultural proficiency; and (5) experience working within interdisciplinary teams. Many primary care practitioners felt inadequately trained in palliative care and felt unprepared to provide the necessary care. Specifically, poor communication between healthcare professionals and patients were found to adversely affect the level of palliative care that is provided. Additionally, practical experience in palliative/end-of-life care was cited as one of the most beneficial methods in helping to improve knowledge about and ability to practice in the field. The majority of articles emphasized the need for education and training programs to enhance the quality of palliative/end-of-life care service provision. Palliative care education appeared to have numerous benefits, including enhancing providers’ knowledge of and attitudes towards this subject, ability to provide palliative/end-of-life care, and self-perception of preparedness. As the landscape of education needs are constantly changing, this review serves as one of the steps in an ongoing evaluation of palliative care providers’ training needs.
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 | 0.028 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".