Fulfilling end-of-life dreams: A scoping review of bucket lists in palliative and hospice care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study is to examine the existing literature on end-of-life dream experiences and bucket list fulfillments among terminally ill individuals receiving hospice and/or palliative care. METHODS: A scoping review registered on Open Science Framework was conducted in accordance with the guidelines for Scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). An electronic search of literature was generated from EBSCO databases published until June 2024. Studies were included if they described and evaluated the effects of bucket lists and/or end-of-life wish fulfillment. RESULTS: This review identified 2,234 studies, and 11 of these were included in the review. Four major themes were established using thematic content analysis: (1) impact on holistic well-being, (2) role of family in wish fulfillment, (3) cultivation of gratitude, and (4) collaborative leadership in wish fulfillment. In wish fulfillment, the results significantly pointed to the need for more intricate evaluation among patients and interventions that cover beyond the physical aspect. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Palliative and hospice care settings should work toward securing sustainable funding for structured wish-fulfillment programs to address existing accessibility gaps and further enhance the holistic nature of care in these settings. Wish-fulfillment interventions represent a powerful tool in enhancing dignity and holistic experiences for terminally ill patients. Future research efforts could strengthen programs ensuring every individual is able to achieve a sense of peace, fulfillment, and closure during their care trajectory.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".