Quality Indicators in Pediatric Palliative Care: Considerations for Latin America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric palliative care is a growing field in which the currently available resources are still insufficient to meet the palliative care needs of children worldwide. Specifically, in Latin America, pediatric palliative care services have emerged unevenly and are still considered underdeveloped when compared to other regions of the world. A crucial step in developing pediatric palliative care (PPC) programs is delineating quality indicators; however, no consensus has been reached on the outcomes or how to measure the impact of PPC. Additionally, Latin America has unique sociocultural characteristics that impact the perception, acceptance, enrollment and implementation of palliative care services. To date, no defined set of quality indicators has been proposed for the region. This article explores the limitations of current available quality indicators and describes the Latin American context and how it affects PPC development. This information can help guide the creation of standards of care and quality indicators that meet local PPC needs while considering the sociocultural landscape of Latin America and its population.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".