A review of telehospice use during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted traditional hospice care, prompting the use of telehospice to deliver end-of-life services remotely while maintaining quality and continuity of care. AIM: This integrative review examines the feasibility, effectiveness and challenges of telehospice during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a focus on patient outcomes and caregiver experiences. METHOD: An integrative review approach was used to analyse 12 peer-reviewed studies published between January 2020 and June 2023. FINDINGS: Telehospice enhanced access to care in rural and underserved areas, enabled timely symptom management and strengthened interdisciplinary collaboration. Families reported improved communication, emotional support and involvement in decision-making. However, challenges to telehospice care such as limited internet access, digital literacy gaps and difficulties replicating the intimacy of in-person care were frequently noted. CONCLUSION: Telehospice is a feasible and acceptable model for end-of-life care. Ongoing investment in infrastructure, training and equitable access is essential for long-term integration.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".