MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408623596 · doi:10.1177/02692163251320507

Systematic adaptation of public health palliative care interventions across settings using ADAPT guidance: Methodological learnings from the EU NAVIGATE project

2025· article· en· W4408623596 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fien Van Campe, Kenneth Chambaere, Lara Pivodic, Joni Gilissen, Barb Pesut, Wendy Duggleby, Tinne Smets, Katarzyna Szczerbińska, Maja de Brito, Andrew Davies, Davide Ferraris, Annicka G. M. van der Plas, Bianca Scacciati

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHORIZON EUROPE HealthHORIZON EUROPE Framework ProgrammeEuropean Commission
KeywordsPalliative carePsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Adaptation (eye)Public healthIntervention (counseling)Health careMedicineNursingSystematic reviewProcess managementPsychologyMEDLINEPolitical scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Systematic adaptation of evidence-informed interventions is critical for effective transfer across settings. Public health palliative care interventions pose unique challenges because of their complexity and embedding in dynamic, real-life settings. The ADAPT guidance provides a comprehensive framework for systematically adapting evidence-informed health interventions, yet its application in public health palliative care remains unexplored. AIM: Within the EU NAVIGATE project, this study describes the international adaptation process of a Canadian navigation program supporting older people with cancer experiencing declining health, for implementation in six European countries. It also reflects on the methodological insights gained from applying the ADAPT guidance in public health palliative care. DESIGN: Using an iterative five-stage multi-method approach, we followed the ADAPT guidance and its recommended frameworks. Stage 1 assessed context-intervention fit and identified core and adaptable components of the original intervention. Stage 2 adapted implementation materials, while stage 3 involved a contextual analysis. Stage 4 focused on adapting the training for implementers, and stage 5 reviewed feasibility. RESULTS: The ADAPT guidance proved flexible and useful, though systematic adaptation posed challenges due to the unique complexities of public health palliative care interventions. These included balancing intervention integrity with cultural sensitivities and local juridical regulations regarding end of life. Our process addressed these challenges through contextual assessments, identifying core components, engaging with original developers, and collaboration between local and international adaptation teams. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic adaptation process, guided by the ADAPT guidance is feasible, but transferring public health palliative care interventions requires careful methodological, contextual, and conceptual considerations.

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)0.301
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.307
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.3010.307
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0060.016
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.568
GPT teacher head0.567
Teacher spread0.001 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207