The experience of individuals living with alcohol use disorder within palliative care and end of life services: A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with alcohol use disorder (AUD) often face stigma and fragmented care, contributing to the underutilization of palliative care (PC), despite overlapping clinical needs. Research on the specific experiences of AUD patients in PC and end of life (EOL) settings remains limited. A scoping review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted across five databases. From 865 initial results, eight studies met inclusion criteria after full-text screening. Five of them were case reports. Eligible studies focused on the experiences of individuals living with AUD receiving PC or EOL services. Data extraction and narrative synthesis were then conducted. Patients with AUD in PC often experienced significant symptom burden, including poorly managed pain, depression, and alcohol withdrawal symptoms. AUD was frequently underrecognized by healthcare professionals, and details of alcohol use were inconsistently reported. Transitions to PC were often delayed, with limited patient involvement in EOL decision-making. Stigma, clinician discomfort, and lack of integrated addiction and PC approaches were recurring barriers to optimal care. Given the limited research on the management of AUD within PC settings, this review highlights the need for further investigation. While the findings suggest potential priorities for future research and clinical practice, including improved AUD screening, enhanced training for PC providers, and earlier, patient-centered EOL planning. These findings should be interpreted with caution, as they are based on a small number of studies, most of which are case reports. Addressing these gaps may enhance the quality of care and outcomes for individuals with AUD at the EOL. • First review of AUD patient experiences in PC and EOL care services. 1 1 AUD: Alcohol Use Disorder; PC: Palliative Care; EOL: End of Life • AUD patients often face high symptom burden and care planning delays. • Stigma and underdetection of AUD hinder timely PC transitions. • Calls for routine AUD screening and patient-centered EOL planning. • Highlights need for addiction-specific training in PC.
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 | 0.011 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".