Inclusion of informal caregivers in the palliative and end-of-life care of older adults: a scoping review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Palliative and end-of-life (EOL) care will increasingly be required in years to come as a result of an ageing population. An important component of this type of care is the inclusion of informal caregivers, who are family members or friends offering unpaid assistance to older adults with a terminal illness. Although systematic reviews were conducted on topics related to the inclusion of informal caregivers in the palliative and EOL care of older adults, several gaps remain as they were specific to a health condition and/or setting. The purpose of our scoping review is to map the extent of knowledge on this subject. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct our scoping review following Levac's methodology. We will gather publications of various types through nine databases, manual searches in journals and search engines and reference lists. The selection process will be conducted by two independent reviewers and consist of screening by title and abstract, followed by reading the full text to confirm eligibility. An independent reviewer will then extract data and assess quality from included publications. Data extracted from different publication types will be synthesised together in the Excel software using a content analysis method, with quantitative data transformed into a qualitative description. Results will be presented through descriptive statistics and themes. During different steps of the review, we will also consult informal caregivers and health professionals for feedback as stakeholders. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The conduction of this scoping review requires no ethical approval. Results will provide an overview of the state of knowledge on the inclusion of informal caregivers in palliative and EOL of older adults, which could help guide clinical practice, the development of interventions and policy and further research. We will disseminate these results by publishing an article, presenting in conferences, and discussing findings with stakeholders.
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 | 0.136 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.062 | 0.016 |
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".