The delivery of palliative and end-of-life care to adolescents and young adults living with cancer: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review will provide an overview of the evidence on the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care to adolescents and young adults living with cancer, by identifying knowledge gaps and discussing the key characteristics and types of evidence in this field. INTRODUCTION: Adolescents and young adults receive their diagnoses at an important stage of development, and often access health systems that are ill-equipped to deal with them, leading to many unmet needs. Some of these needs can be addressed by holistic palliative care services. A better understanding of the literature in this area is needed to identify what is known about the delivery of care to adolescents and young adults. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that pertain to the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care for adolescents and young adults living with cancer. Relevant research may be in the context of ambulatory services, advance care planning, palliative care units, home care, hospices, and end-of-lifecare facilities. Studies that concern other oncology populations will be excluded. METHODS: CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), and Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index; Clarivate Analytics) databases will be searched, along with other sources of gray literature. No date limit will be set. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts for studies that meet the review's inclusion criteria and the fulltext of eligible studies will be reviewed. Data from studies that are eligible for inclusion will be extracted using two independent reviewers and presented in a tabular form with an accompanying narrative summary.
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 | 0.101 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.013 |
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".