MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415154133 · doi:10.1186/s12904-025-01797-0

Strengthening care for adults with palliative care needs in high-income rural communities: a global policy environmental scan

2025· article· en· W4415154133 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Claire Marshall, Claudia Virdun, Jane Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Palliative Care · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careBridging (networking)Rural areaPolicy developmentFocus groupHealth careFocus (optics)Needs assessmentRural development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Almost 45% of the world's population resides in rural locations. Despite this, access to best evidence-based palliative care is variable. Reforming and optimising rural palliative care is dependent upon positive public policy. AIM: To map country- and jurisdiction- level policy against the elements of care required to optimise rural palliative care provision in high-income countries. DESIGN AND DATA SOURCES: An environmental scan of policies denoting actions informing rural palliative care access and delivery in high-income countries, performed using a modified version of Khalil and colleagues' five-stage scoping review methodology. Grey literature was searched in November 2024 across Australia, Canada, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Finland, United Kingdom, and the United States of America. Rural specific policy actions were mapped against the World Health Organization's Innovative Care for Chronic Conditions Framework (ICCCF). RESULTS: Of 3809 records screened, eight country-level and eight jurisdiction-level palliative care policies denoting 113 rural palliative care specific actions across 13 of 18 WHO ICCCF elements of care were identified. Over 90% of actions addressed macro-(n = 52, 47%) or meso- level (n = 50; 44%) elements, and two-thirds addressed five sub-categories: 1) Build workforce capacity; 2) Develop rural specific teams, committees and positions; 3) Identify, maintain, and scale up new and/or existing rural palliative care models; 4) Increase access to integrated, seamless rural palliative care; and 5) Identify gaps in rural service provision and service planning. CONCLUSIONS: While there is a wide spread of actions across macro- and meso- level WHO ICCCF elements, there is limited focus on micro- level elements, and a lack of complementary actions within documents across the three layers of care. Country-level policies are pivotal to setting the tone, while jurisdiction-level policies can further target the specific needs of rural communities within each area's unique constraints. Findings support a growing need to devise methodologies informing development and measurement of healthcare policy. Optimising rural palliative care policy demands cross-sector participation and the involvement of consumers, to co-design actions which accurately reflect the unique and nuanced rural environment and its citizens, and be capable of bridging disparities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.430
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Palliative CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207