Family experiences with palliative care in freestanding paediatric hospices: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paediatric palliative care provides supportive care to children with life-threatening or life-limiting illnesses throughout the disease trajectory. Up to 42% of children receiving palliative care in Canada will die within a freestanding paediatric hospice or designated end-of-life care bed. Few studies have assessed families' experiences of this care within freestanding paediatric hospices. OBJECTIVES: To find and describe literature relating to family experiences in paediatric hospice palliative care throughout the end-of-life care journey including grief and bereavement. CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria: Children antepartum to 18 years or older if on paediatric palliative care service. Research conducted in freestanding paediatric hospices that focused on families' experiences and perceptions of end-of-life and grief and bereavement care. Full-text articles available in English. EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Adult palliative and end-of-life care, respite care, palliative care provided in acute or community settings, professional perspectives, unexpected or sudden child death, pregnancy after loss. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched from database inception until the present. Grey literature was also searched for relevant results. CHARTING METHODS: . RESULTS: A total of 4250 papers were retrieved, of which 10 met the scoping review criteria. The majority of studies were conducted in the UK. Three major themes emerged: more supportive care for families including grief and bereavement support, the hospice experience itself and future research areas. CONCLUSIONS: There is little literature that focuses specifically on the needs of families within freestanding paediatric hospices. Further examination of the themes identified above provides an opportunity for 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 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 | 0.009 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".