MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408326797 · doi:10.1177/08404704251322481

Mending the gaps: A systems-focused rapid review on paediatric palliative care for health leaders

2025· review· en· W4408326797 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Liana Bailey, Kira Goodman

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare Management Forum · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsCanadian Hospice Palliative Care AssociationChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsPalliative careNursingService delivery frameworkHealth careBusinessService (business)MedicineCapacity buildingPublic relationsPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada, the provision of Paediatric Palliative Care (PPC) services faces unique barriers due to a large geography and dispersed service population. This review identifies global challenges and strategies to inform efforts in strengthening Canadian PPC access and delivery. Utilizing a rapid review methodology, two databases were searched for publications between 2014 and 2024. Five hundred and ninety-five studies were imported, and 31 retained. Challenges identified in the literature included (i) uncertainty with team roles and responsibilities, (ii) lack of PPC familiarity, and (iii) navigating fragmented health systems. Recommendations included (i) enhancing education, (ii) streamlining access, and (iii) increasing awareness. Concerted effort between health leaders is essential to implement solutions towards a more integrated care system-one that considers the needs of all children. Prioritizing nationwide awareness, access, and capacity-building will ensure PPC meets the needs of all children and families, regardless of location.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0160.019
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcare Management ForumSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207