MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173493689 · doi:10.1017/s1478951521000894

Culturally sensitive palliative care in humanitarian action: Lessons from a critical interpretive synthesis of culture in palliative care literature

2021· review· en· W3173493689 on OpenAlexaff
Corinne J. Schuster‐Wallace, Élysée Nouvet, Ishmeala Rigby, Gautham Krishnaraj, Sonya de Laat, Lisa Schwartz, Matthew Hunt

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcMaster UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersWellcome Trust
KeywordsPalliative carePreparednessHealth careNursingIndigenousPsychologyPublic relationsMedicineSociologyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: There is growing recognition of the importance of increasing preparedness for and the provision of palliative care in humanitarian crises. The primary objective of this review is to interpret the existing literature on culture and palliative care to query the recommendation that humanitarian healthcare providers, teams, and organizations integrate palliative care into their practice in ways that are attentive to and respectful of cultural differences. METHODS: A critical interpretive synthesis was applied to a systematic literature review guided by the PRISMA framework. Analysis was based on directed data extraction and was team based, to ensure rigor and consistency. RESULTS: In total, 112 articles covering 51 countries and 9 major worldviews met inclusion criteria. This literature describes culture as it influences perspectives on death and dying, expectations of palliative care, and challenges to providing culturally sensitive care. A key pattern highlighted in articles with respect to the culture and palliative care literature is that culture is invoked in this literature as a sort of catch-all for non-white, non-Christian, indigenous practices, and preferences for palliative care. It is important that humanitarian healthcare providers and organizations aiming to enact their commitment of respect for all persons through attention to potential culturally specific approaches to pain management, suffering, and dying in specific crisis settings do so without reproducing Othering and reductionistic understandings of what culturally sensitive care in humanitarian crises settings involves. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This paper clarifies and unpacks the diverse influences of culture in palliative care with the goal of supporting the preparedness and capacity of humanitarian healthcare providers to provide palliative care. In doing so, it aids in thinking through what constitutes culturally sensitive practice when it comes to palliative care needs in humanitarian crises. Providing such care is particularly challenging but also tremendously important given that healthcare providers from diverse cultures are brought together under high stress conditions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.355
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.475
Teacher spread0.348 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations32
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative & Supportive CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207