Increasing our understanding of nonphysical suffering within palliative care: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Nonphysical suffering is emotional, psychological, existential, spiritual, and/or social in nature. While palliative care is a discipline dedicated to the prevention and relief of suffering - both physical and nonphysical - little is known about existing research specific to nonphysical suffering within the context of palliative care. This scoping review helps to fill this gap. METHOD: Three hundred and twenty-eight unique records were identified through a systematic search of three databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO). The following keywords were used: (suffering) AND (palliative OR "end of life" OR "end-of-life" OR hospice OR dying OR terminal* ill*). Thirty studies published between 1998 and 2019 met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Losses, worries, and fears comprise patients' primary sources of nonphysical suffering. Patients face numerous barriers in expressing their nonphysical suffering to healthcare providers. The idea that patients can choose how they perceive their circumstances, thereby minimizing their nonphysical suffering, is pervasive in the research. The nature of nonphysical suffering experienced by family caregivers and palliative care clinicians is revealed in the review. The unique and sensitive interplay between nonphysical suffering and both palliative sedation and requests for hastened death is also evident. Overall, seven themes can be identified: (i) patients' experiences of nonphysical suffering; (ii) patient coping mechanisms; (iii) efforts to measure nonphysical suffering; (iv) palliative sedation; (v) requests for hastened death; (vi) family suffering; and (vii) clinician suffering. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This is the first scoping review to map palliative care's research specific to suffering that is social, emotional, spiritual, psychological, and/or existential in nature. Its findings expand our understanding of the nature of nonphysical suffering experienced by patients, families, and palliative care clinicians. The review's findings have significant implications for front-line practice and future research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".