MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414654521 · doi:10.31661/gmj.v14i.4007

Early Versus Late Pediatric Palliative Care in Oncology: A Systematic Review of Outcomes, Disparities, and Implementation Barriers

2025· review· en· W4414654521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fatemeh Rezaei, Fatemeh Salamat, Homa Vejdani, Fatemeh Moslemi Najarcolaie, Zahra Gharibi, Atieh Okhli, Ainaz Esmi, Arezoo Kordian

Bibliographic record

VenueGalen Medical Journal · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careRandomized controlled trialPediatric oncologyQuality of life (healthcare)MEDLINESystematic reviewClinical trialEnd-of-life careNarrative review

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This systematic review, conducted per PRISMA 2020 guidelines, synthesizes evidence on early pediatric palliative care (PPC) versus late or no PPC in children and young adults (0-21 years) with life-threatening oncologic illnesses. A comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and grey literature (ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov) from inception to 1 August 2025 identified 12 studies, including retrospective cohorts, surveys, and one randomized controlled trial across the USA, Canada, Taiwan, and Spain. Early PPC, variably defined as initiation from diagnosis to 12 months before death, consistently reduced end-of-life care intensity (fewer ICU admissions, mechanical ventilation, invasive interventions), increased hospice enrollment, home deaths, and improved quality of life and symptom management compared to late or no PPC. Disparities were evident, with minority groups and patients with hematologic malignancies less likely to receive early PPC, compounded by barriers such as provider misconceptions, systemic limitations, and clinical trial enrollment delays. Outpatient and integrated home-hospital PPC models significantly lowered hospital-based end-of-life care, though robust late PPC programs could achieve comparable outcomes. Narrative synthesis using the GRADE approach highlighted moderate to high confidence in reduced care intensity and improved family outcomes with early PPC, despite heterogeneous definitions and study designs precluding meta-analysis. Findings show the need for standardized PPC protocols, education to address provider barriers, and policy reforms to enhance equitable access, particularly for underserved populations. While oncology evidence is robust, further randomized trials are needed to strengthen findings across other conditions, supporting early PPC integration to optimize patient and family outcomes in pediatric oncology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.012
Bibliometrics0.0110.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.399 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGalen Medical JournalSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207