Pediatric Advance Care Planning: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To assess current practice and provide a basis for a provincial template, clinicians at a Canadian pediatric hospice reviewed the literature surrounding pediatric advance care planning (pACP) documentation, process, and implementation for children/youth. The scoping review protocol was developed in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews, and was prospectively registered on the Open Science Framework. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Web of Science Core Collection, and Google Scholar, as well as sources of unpublished studies and grey literature, were reviewed. Sixty-four articles met the criteria. Fifteen pACP documentation forms/tools were also identified. Overall, the included articles highlighted that pACP should be a structured, collaborative and iterative process between the family and a trusted or relevant healthcare provider, encompassing medical and non-medical issues. Few articles provided insights into specific elements recommended for advance directive forms. Identified strategies for implementation included a structured, step-by-step pACP interventional tool along with ongoing training, mentorship, and defined organizational structures for the clinician. No single specific ACP tool was acknowledged as the gold standard. Use of a pACP tool, along with ongoing provider education and communication skill development, standardized/accessible documentation, and system-wide quality improvement support, were noted as integral components of pACP.
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 | 0.041 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.034 | 0.041 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".