Hospital, hospice, or home: A scoping review of the importance of place in pediatric palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palliative care necessitates questions about the preferred place for delivering care and location of death. Place is integral to palliative care, as it can impact proximity to family, available resources/support, and patient comfort. Despite the importance of place, there is remarkably little literature exploring its role in pediatric palliative care (PPC). OBJECTIVES: To understand the importance and meaning of place in PPC. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to understand the importance of place in PPC. Five databases were searched using keywords related to "pediatric," "palliative," and "place." Two reviewers screened results, extracted data, and analyzed emergent themes pertaining to place. RESULTS: From 3076 search results, we identified and reviewed 25 articles. The literature highlights hospital, home, and hospice as 3 distinct PPC places. Children and their families have place preferences for PPC and place of death, and a growing number prefer death to occur at home. Results also indicate numerous factors influence place preferences (e.g., comfort, grief, cultural/spiritual practices, and socioeconomic status). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Place influences families' PPC decisions and experiences and thus warrants further study. Greater understanding of the importance and roles of place in PPC could enhance PPC policy and practice, as well as PPC environments.
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 | 0.008 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".