MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4287529310 · doi:10.4103/jehp.jehp_1413_20

A comparative study of the status of supportive-palliative care provision in Iran and selected countries: Strengths and weaknesses

2021· article· en· W4287529310 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohammad Salimi Amroud, Pouran Raeissi, Seyed‐Masoud Hashemi, Nahid Reisi, Ahmad Ahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Health Promotion · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careChecklistNursingMedicineService (business)Data collectionFamily medicinePopulationBusinessPsychologyEnvironmental healthMarketingSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.513
Teacher spread0.359 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and Health PromotionSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207