Precaution or barrier? Reconsidering contact and isolation measures in palliative care: a systematic scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Infection control measures like contact precautions may conflict with patient-centered palliative care principles, but their efficacy and harms in this context remain understudied. This review evaluates how contact precautions affect quality of life, social connectedness, and infection control efficacy in palliative care. Design: Systematic scoping review. Setting: Palliative care settings (eg, palliative care units and hospices). Participants: Adults and children receiving palliative care, with no restrictions on age or comorbidity. Methods: English-language studies on contact precautions in palliative care were included. Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid Embase were searched from inception to December 20, 2024, using terms related to antimicrobial resistance, contact precautions, and palliative care. No publication type or status restrictions were applied. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework and followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. Results: Fifteen studies were included, primarily from Germany (73%) and using qualitative methods (80%). Most focused on patients in palliative care units or hospices, though geographic and methodological limitations restrict generalizability. Common challenges included fear, loneliness, disrupted intimacy, and inconsistent protocols. Contact precautions were often bundled with other infection prevention interventions, limiting the ability to assess their specific impact. Terminology varied widely. No study directly evaluated the efficacy of contact precautions in reducing antimicrobial-resistant organism (ARO) transmission, though one pediatric study reported liberal protocols and no nosocomial ARO infections. Conclusions: A case-by-case approach is needed to balance infection control with patient dignity and quality of life. Consistent terminology and more robust, mixed-methods research are essential to inform evidence-based protocols in diverse settings.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".