Retrospective Study of a Toronto-Based Palliative Care Program for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Individuals experiencing homelessness face increased morbidity and mortality. The Canadian Toronto-based Palliative Education and Care for the Homeless (PEACH) program was launched to better support those experiencing homelessness with life-limiting illness. Objective: To describe the population served by PEACH. Methods: A chart review of deceased clients from 2014 to 2017 was conducted. Results: Sixty-three individuals were included in the analysis. 85.7% were male and the median age was 60 years. 35.4% resided in shelters, 26.2% in supportive/transitional housing; only 3.2% were sleeping on the streets. Cancer was the most common diagnosis (61.9%). 58.7% of clients had mental health diagnoses and 61.9% endorsed substance use. Locations of death included palliative care unit and hospice (44.4%), hospital (23.8%), supportive housing (12.6%), and shelter (7.9%). Discussion: PEACH serves diverse clientele with unique care needs. This study will inform further palliative care research and interventions for those experiencing homelessness.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".