A comparative study of the status of supportive-palliative care provision in Iran and selected countries: Strengths and weaknesses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Terminally, illnesses such as cancer, AIDS, dementia, and advanced heart disease will require special supportive and palliative care, although a few numbers of these patients are provided with these services. The aim of the present study was to perform a comparative study of supportive-palliative care provision in selected countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This research was a descriptive comparative study that its research population was the frameworks of palliative and supportive care provision in Egypt, Turkey, America, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, and China. These frameworks were compared across six dimensions of service receivers, financing, providers, service provider centers, type of services provided, and training. Data collection tool has included the checklist and information sources, documents, evidence, articles, books, and journals collected through the Internet and organizations related to the health information of selected countries and by the library search. Data were investigated and analyzed using the data collection tool and checklists. FINDINGS: The findings showed that the developed countries having decentralized trusteeship structure had a more favorable status in palliative and supportive care provision. The type of services provided was a combination of mental, psychological, social, spiritual, financial, and physical and communication services. Provider centers included hospital, the elderly, and cancer and charity centers. CONCLUSION: Regarding the investigation and recognition of the status of supportive-palliative care provision, it was observed that the provision of these services was a concern of the selected countries, but they did not have a defined model or pattern to provide these services. Therefore, it is suggested that each country takes a step to redesign and define frameworks and structures in the evolution of supportive-palliative cares in accordance with the particular conditions, indigenous culture, religion, and other effective cases of that country and pays special attention to the role and position of supportive-palliative cares.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".