Experience, decision‐making and information needs around parenteral nutrition among people with advanced cancer, and their carers: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The present study aims to summarise current knowledge and identify gaps in knowledge and research regarding experience, decision-making and information needs around parenteral nutrition, among people with advanced cancer, and their carers. METHODS: This review was informed by previous methods and guidance on conducting and reporting scoping reviews. A literature search was conducted in March 2021 using Embase, Medline, CINAHL, Google and Web of Science to identify studies that examined the experience, decision-making process and information needs of adults with advanced cancer, and their carers, who were making decisions around commencing and discontinuing parenteral nutrition. There were no date limitations, although only papers published in English were included. RESULTS: Of the 588 papers identified, 12 papers, all qualitative, met the eligibility criteria. Despite the reported negative aspects of home parenteral nutrition, patients and carers felt the benefits outweighed these. There was variability in whether patients and carers felt involved in decisions around commencing parenteral nutrition. No studies specifically addressed information needs. CONCLUSIONS: Research is required to explore the information that patients with advanced cancer, and their carers, need to facilitate their decision-making around commencing and discontinuing parenteral nutrition. We recommend the development of processes for obtaining written informed consent from patients commencing parenteral nutrition to ensure that core topics are discussed on initiation, enabling patients and carers to make informed decisions. Additionally, we recommend development of a national framework to inform patients and carers of the whole discharge process on PN from decision-making to discontinuing PN.
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 | 0.024 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".