MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389782339 · doi:10.1007/s11606-023-08564-y

The Evolving Roles and Expectations of Inpatient Palliative Care Through COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-synthesis

2023· review· en· W4389782339 on OpenAlexafffund
Dylan Weisman Zhao, Shahar Geva Robinson, Rachel Pozzar, Richard E. Leiter, Chris Walsh, Isaac Siemens, Emily Lovrics, Victor Cellarius, Ramona Mahtani, Zhimeng Jia

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of General Internal Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSinai Health SystemQueen's University
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsPalliative careCINAHLMedicineMEDLINESystematic reviewFamily medicineNursingCritical appraisalPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Psychological interventionAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Palliative care performed a central role in responding to the systemic suffering incurred by the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, few studies have elucidated the inpatient palliative care specialists' experiences and perceptions. OBJECTIVE: Systematically review and synthesize the evolving roles and expectations of inpatient palliative care specialists in response to COVID-19. DESIGN: A systematic review and meta-synthesis informed by Thomas and Harden's framework and Pozzar et al.'s approach was conducted in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PubMed were systematically searched for articles published between December 2019 and March 2023. We included all peer-reviewed qualitative and mixed-method literature studying the roles and expectations of inpatient palliative care specialists. A mixed-method appraisal tool was used for quality assessment. RESULTS: Of 3869 unique articles, 52 were included. Studies represented North American (n = 23), European (n = 16), South American (n = 4), Oceanic (n = 2), Asian (n = 2), West African (n = 1), Middle Eastern (n = 1), and inter-continental settings (n = 3). Most were reported in English (n = 50), conducted in 2020 (n = 28), and focused on the perspectives of inpatient palliative care clinicians (n = 28). Three descriptive themes captured the roles and expectations of inpatient palliative care specialists: shifting foundations, reorienting to relationships, and evolving identity. Two analytical themes were synthesized: palliative care propagates compassion through a healing presence, and palliative care enhances the systemic response to suffering through nimble leadership. CONCLUSION: Inpatient palliative care specialists responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by establishing their healing presence and leading with their adaptability. To develop institutionally tailored and collaborative responses to future pandemics, future studies are needed to understand how inpatient palliative care clinicians are recognized and valued within their institutions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.041
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.135
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.217

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0410.135
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.020
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.333
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of General Internal MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207