Indigenous Peoples' Experiences in Palliative and End‐of‐Life Care in Canada: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This scoping review aimed to explore what is known about Indigenous peoples' experiences with palliative and end-of-life care in Canada. DESIGN: A scoping review. DATA SOURCES: A systematic search was performed from database inception to May 2022: CINAHL, Academic Search Complete, ERIC, Cochrane, Medline, PsychINFO, Indigenous Collections, Indigenous Peoples of North America and EMBASE. No date limitations were applied. Unpublished and grey literature was searched using the Google search engine. A search update was conducted in April 2024. METHODS: This scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. Titles, abstracts and full text were screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Mapping and thematic analysis were used to analyse, collate and summarise extracted data. RESULTS: Fifty-three sources were included in the review. While the methods, locations and context vary across the literature, common themes emerged: Disparities in Indigenous representation in palliative and end-of-life care literature, challenges in accessing palliative and end-of-life care, priorities related to palliative and end-of-life care and experiences specific to end of life. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review revealed several key insights into Indigenous peoples' experiences with palliative and end-of-life care. IMPACT: Findings identify the need to enhance cultural safety in palliative and end-of-life care and support community capacity to develop and lead palliative and end-of-life care research and initiatives. Furthermore, findings suggest the need for palliative and end-of-life care initiatives that are Indigenous-led, grounded in Indigenous research methods and distinctions-based. REPORTING METHOD: We have adhered to relevant EQUATOR guidelines. We followed the PRISMA-Scr in the reporting of this scoping review. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTIONS: No patient or public contribution. This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".