Nursing activities for health promotion in palliative home care: an integrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palliative care in community contexts is undergoing significant change as a result of public policy and new models of care, which link health promotion principles with palliative care practices. These models support the creation of partnerships between formal care structures and the communities in which care is provided. Given the central role of nurses in the institutional delivery of palliative care, particularly in the home, it is important to provide a systematic description of the activities of nurses that fall within the principles of health promotion. The objective was to describe the diverse range of nursing activities for health promotion that are provided in the palliative home care setting. This is an integrative review. Fifty-five studies listed in the MEDLINE, CINAHL and EMBASE databases, and published between 1999 and December 2022, were identified. Data analysis and presentation of the results were guided by Kellehear's Health-Promoting Palliative Care (HPPC) model. Six themes were identified to describe nursing activities for health promotion in the context of palliative home care: creating a meaningful relationship, supplying medical information, promoting self-care throughout the trajectory, providing emotional support, involving professional or community services and supporting change. The findings point to nurses focusing more on the individual context and on direct care. The relationship with communities in which they work remains unidirectional. However, some HPPC principles are relevant to nursing activities through the contextualization of nurses' actions and their moral responsibility to work towards the respect of patient's values. Being poorly described, how nurses can truly engage their practice towards health-promoting principles, such as the enhancement of support and control over their lives for people living with serious illness, still requires further empirical research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".