Scoping Review on Transitions in the Context of Pediatric Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Children with complex and chronic conditions receiving palliative care will likely experience many transitions during their life and their treatments. Transition periods for children with life-limiting conditions and their families can be bewildering and highly anxiety-inducing. However, clinical observations seem to point to a more heterogenous care offer, including a lack or discontinuity of services, at the expense of their quality of life. Objective: This paper aims to establish a portrait of the existing literature and identify research gaps on the multiple transitions experienced by this population. Design: A scoping review is provided, following a PRISMA protocol. MEDLINE, PubMed and CINAHL were consulted. The search strategy is based on three key concepts: (1) palliative care/complex condition, (2) child/adolescent, and (3) transition. Articles were screened with the help of Covidence. Results: A total of 72 articles are included for analysis. The aimed population is either identified by age group or by medical status. Respondents are most often parents rather than the children themselves. Transitions include: reaching adulthood, changes in care environment, changes in medical status, and school integration. Conclusion: The discussion notices a definitional murkiness about transitions and highlights the fact that the multifaceted and complex nature of transition over time is largely ignored. New research should involve a diversity of participants and include children’s voices. Recommendations include clearer concept definitions, health care policies that adopt an ecosystemic approach, and professional training in the systemic family approach in palliative 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 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 | 0.010 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".