MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409150847 · doi:10.1186/s12904-025-01712-7

Defining “early palliative care” for adults diagnosed with a life-limiting illness: a scoping review

2025· review· en· W4409150847 on OpenAlexafffund
Colleen Kircher, Timothy P. Hanna, Joan Tranmer, Craig Goldie, Amanda Ross‐White, E. J. Moulton, Jack Flegal, Catherine Goldie

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Palliative Care · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsSt. Lawrence CollegeKingston Health Sciences CentreQueen's University
FundersOntario Institute for Cancer Research
KeywordsPalliative carePain medicineLimitingMedicineIntensive care medicineGerontologyPsychiatryPsychologyNursingAnesthesiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Palliative care is for people suffering from life-limiting illnesses that focuses on providing relief from symptoms and stress of illness. Previous studies have demonstrated that specialist palliative care consultation delivered earlier in the disease process can enhance patients' quality of life, reduce their symptom burden, reduce use of hospital-based acute care services and extend their survival. However, various definitions exist for the term early palliative care (EPC). OBJECTIVE: To investigate how EPC has been defined in the literature for adults with life- limiting illnesses. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines and follows the Joanna Briggs Institution methodology for scoping reviews. The literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Ovid Cochrane Library, and ProQuest (Health and Medicine and Sociology Collections). All articles retrieved were screened by three independent reviewers. RESULTS: 153 articles met the inclusion criteria between 2008 and 2024. Five categories of definitions for EPC were created to organize definitions: (1) time-based (e.g. time from advanced cancer diagnosis to EPC initiation); (2) prognosis-based (e.g. prognosis or the 'surprise question'); (3) location-based (e.g. access point within the healthcare system such as outpatient setting); (4) treatment-based (e.g. physician's judgement or prior to specific therapies); and (5) symptom-based (e.g. using symptom intensity questionnaires). Many studies included patients with cancer (n = 103), with the most common definition category being time-based (n = 53). Amongst studies focusing on multiple or non-cancer diagnoses (n = 50), the most common definition category was symptom-based (n = 16). CONCLUSION: Our findings provide a useful reference point for those seeking to understand the scope and breadth of existing EPC definitions in cancer and non-cancer illnesses and contemplate their application within clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.305 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations10
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207