Patient and families’ perspectives on telepalliative care: A systematic integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Telepalliative care is increasingly used in palliative care, but has yet to be examined from a patient and family perspective. A synthesis of evidence may provide knowledge on how to plan and provide telepalliative care that caters specifically to patients and families' needs. OBJECTIVE: To synthesise evidence on patients and families' perspectives on telepalliative care. DESIGN: A systematic integrative review (PROSPERO #CRD42022301206) reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Inclusion criteria; primary peer-reviewed studies published 2011-2022, patient and family perspective, >18 years, telepalliative care and English/Danish language. Quality was appraised using the mixed-methods appraisal tool, version 2020. Guided by Toronto and Remington, data were extracted, thematically analysed and synthesised. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL were searched in March 2022 and updated in February 2023. RESULTS: Forty-four studies were included. Analysis revealed five themes; the effect of the Covid-19 pandemic on telepalliative care, adding value for patients and families, synchronous and asynchronous telepalliative care, the integration of telepalliative care with other services and the tailoring and timing of telepalliative care. CONCLUSION: Enhanced access to care and convenience, as attributes of telepalliative care, are highly valued. Patients and families have varying needs during the illness trajectory that may be addressed by early integration of telepalliative care based on models of care that are flexible and combine synchronous and asynchronous solutions. Further research should examine telepalliative care in a post-pandemic context, use of models of care and identify meaningful outcome measures from patient and family perspectives for evaluation of telepalliative care.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".