The Delivery of Palliative and End-of-Life Care to Adolescents and Young Adults Living with Cancer: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of the existing evidence on the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care to adolescents and young adults (AYAs) living with cancer, by identifying knowledge gaps and discussing the key characteristics and types of evidence in this field. This study employed a JBI scoping review design. CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Elsevier), MEDLINE (Ovid), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), and Web of Science (Science Citation Index Expanded and Social Sciences Citation Index; Clarivate Analytics) databases were searched along with grey literature sources to February 2022 for related studies on the delivery of palliative and end-of-life care to AYAs. No search restrictions were applied. Two independent reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles for eligibility, and they extracted data from studies that met the inclusion criteria. A total of 29,394 records were identified through our search strategy and 51 studies met the inclusion criteria of the study. The studies were published between 2004 and 2022, with the majority from North America (65%). The included studies involved patient, healthcare provider, caregiver, and public stakeholders. Their primary foci were often on end-of-life outcomes (41%) and/or advance care planning/end-of-life priorities and decision-making (35%). This review identified several evidence gaps within the field, including a focus primarily on patients who have died. Findings highlight the need for more collaborative research with AYAs on their experiences with palliative and end-of-life care, as well as their involvement as patient partners in 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 | 0.021 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".