The adult and pediatric palliative care: differences and shared issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adult and pediatric palliative care (PC) share common aims and ethical principles but differ in many organizational and practical aspects. The aim of this narrative review is to analyze these differences and focus on which key aspects of pediatric palliative care could integrate adult services for a better care of suffering patients.Interventions which are peculiar of pediatric PC respect to adult PC include: an earlier referral to the PC service to identify the needs and plan the interventions at an earlier stage of the disease; consequently, a more systematic cooperation with the disease-specific physicians to reduce the burden of treatments; a better integration with the community and the social surroundings of the patients, to prevent social isolation and preserve their social role; a more dynamic organization of the PC services, to give patients the chance of being stabilized at in-hospital or residential settings and subsequently discharged and cared at home whenever possible and desired; the implementation of respite care for adults, to help the families coping with the burden of the disease of their beloved and promote the home-based PC.This review underlines the relevance of some key-aspects of pediatric PC that can be beneficial also within PC of adults. Its findings give the chance for a more dynamic and modern organization of adult PC services and may serve as a basis of future research for new interventions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".