Compassionate communities: a public health approach to palliative and end of life care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IFIC Ireland case study on Kerry Hospice IFIC Latin America examples of public health approaches in Costa Rica and Chile. Background: Many health and care systems are developing multi-sector strategies to create more caring and connected communities where everyone has the opportunity to develop meaningful relationships regardless of age, status, circumstances or identity. Common success factors include adopting a social model that brings together different generations and the full range of civil society partners using community development principles and mobilising the collective strengths and assets of individuals, families, friends and communities. These concepts are at the heart of a public health approach to palliative and end of life care that aims to address the marginalisation associated with dying, death and loss. Such approaches are heavily influenced by culture, geography, availability of health and care workforce and volunteers, and the maturity of community empowerment. This 90-minute workshop explores these issues in collaboration with members of IFICs Palliative Care, Compassionate Communities and Rural, Remote and Island SIGs. Audience The interactive workshop will be of interest to policy makers, researchers, advocates, patients, carers and professionals who plan, commission, fund, provide or regulate health and care services and support for people who need palliative and end of life care. SIG members from Canada, Scotland, Ireland and Latin America will describe how they are adopting public health approaches to death, dying and bereavement, co-designed with people and local communities. Participation in the session by a wide range of policy makers, practitioners, patients, advocacy organisations and caregivers will provide diverse insights into current challenges and transferable solutions. ApproachIntroduction to the workshop (5 minutes)Chair will provide an introduction to the collaborative work by SIG members on new solutions, approaches and policies that enable a public health and community led approach to integrated palliative and end of life care in different context and geographies.Provocation (30 minutes)Four snapshot presentations will outline innovative experience in Canada, Scotland and Latin America and will highlight the opportunity to learn with international colleagues through the Global Palliative Care ECHO Partnership.Group discussion (40 minutes) Facilitated breakout groups will discuss their experience of key barriers and enablers of implementing a public health approach to palliative care within their local integrated systems Participants will be invited to suggest practical actions / policy levers that will help improve outcomes at times of loss for people and communities in different context and countries Delegates will identify knowledge gaps to be addressed through future local, national and international collaborative research and education. Summary of key points and actions from the groups (0 minutes) ImplicationsThe session will conclude with agreement on take home messages and a set of actions for the participating SIGs to take forward over the next year (5 minutes).
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".