Caring toward end of life through acute hospital and community partnerships: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Global health systems are currently socially and economically burdened. Public health palliative care is an approach to caring toward end of life that can create the innovative change needed to address this inequity. Guided by the Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion (1986), public health palliative care promotes collaboration among palliative care services, civic institutions, and communities to build capacity in all aspects of death, dying, caregiving, and bereavement. Despite growing evidence for the public health approach to palliative care, little is known about how acute hospitals and communities can work together to provide care toward end of life. AIM: To explore how acute hospitals and communities work together to provide care toward end of life. DESIGN: Scoping review guided by Arskey and O'Malley framework. DATA SOURCES: Scopus, Pubmed, CINAHL, and Informit as well as gray literature were searched. Citations were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. RESULTS: Of the six included studies and reports, a priori themes of creating supportive environments; strengthening community action; reorienting health services; developing personal skills and building healthy public policy from the Charter were well represented. Additional themes of communication and language, culture and risk were also identified. Educational, arts health, community engagement initiatives were explored as well as clinical tools, psychosocial interventions, and the No One Dies Alone (NODA) program. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers policymakers, hospitals, and practitioners a framework for implementing hospital-community partnerships toward end-of-life. Despite challenges in acute settings, these initiatives can enhance end-of-life experiences for patients and families.
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 | 0.014 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".