The meaning of dying and death for children, their carers, and families: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The meaning of dying and death are underexplored concepts for Canadian children. Subsequently, it is unclear how children and stakeholders make meaning of children's holistic health needs at the end of life. METHODS: A scoping review of the international scholarly literature was conducted. Thirteen data sources were searched to search the scholarly literature without date limits until January 2022. Studies were included on the basis of population: children (aged 0-19 years), families and caregivers; setting (in Canada and end-of-life or dying phases of living) and concepts of interest (dying and death). RESULTS: Of the 7377 studies identified, 12 were included for data extraction and content thematic analysis. The themes and subthemes include: 1) valuing the whole person; 2) living while dying; 3) authentic death talk; 4) a supportive approach (with lack and presence of support as subthemes); and, 5) a personalist approach. CONCLUSIONS: There is a pressing need for research into the meaning of dying and death for children, their carers and families in Canada. Lack of holistic care, authentic death talk, specialized pediatric palliative care providers, a personalist approach and communities of support present major gaps in care for Canadian children. Research is urgently needed to address these knowledge gaps to generate policy and support practice for dying children in Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".