Experiences of Patients with Advanced Chronic Disease Transitioning to Palliative Care in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Palliative care is a holistic approach aimed at improving the quality of life for patients with advanced chronic diseases by providing physical, emotional, and spiritual support. communication is crucial during every stage of an illness to ensure that patients wishes are respected. This scoping review aimed to explore the literature on experiences of patients with advanced chronic disease transitioning to palliative care in low- and middle-income countries. Methodology: This review was guided by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review framework. A systematic search of the literature was conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar from 2012 to 2022. thematic analysis was utilized to construct themes. Results: The review identified key themes concerning the transition of people with advanced chronic diseases to palliative care in LMICs, including poor understanding, uncertainty, need for support, and poor communication. Conclusion: This review offers valuable insights into the experiences of patients transitioning to palliative care, aiding in the development of more effective interventions for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers.
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 | 0.007 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".