MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415992167 · doi:10.2196/73356

Creating Compassionate Spaces for End-of-Life Care for Older People Experiencing Homelessness: Protocol for an Environmental Assessment of Hospice Settings

2025· article· en· W4415992167 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Atiya Mahmood, Sally Seohyeon Chung, Nushaiba Nanjiba, Sepehr Pandsheno, Jeffrey J Walsh, Sharmin Kader, Sarah L. Canham

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Research Protocols · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHomelessness and Social Issues
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversitySimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlder peopleProtocol (science)Qualitative researchFocus groupMEDLINEHealth careNeeds assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: With current data supporting an increasing population of older people experiencing homelessness (OPEH) requiring unique spatial and placemaking considerations in end-of-life care, understanding the environmental factors that influence their well-being is crucial. OBJECTIVE: This protocol paper provides a comprehensive overview for evaluating hospice environments tailored to the needs of OPEH. METHODS: The Aging in the Right Place study aims to address this gap by developing and implementing the Aging in the Right Place-Hospice Environmental Assessment Protocol (AIRP-HEAP) and AIRP-HEAP secondary observation tools. The AIRP-HEAP tool evaluates the built and natural environment within hospice settings. Adaptations were made to ensure alignment with the unique needs of OPEH, such as reconceptualizing spiritual care and expanding the definition of family accommodation. Additionally, the AIRP-HEAP secondary observation tool supplements this by capturing contextual data on the surrounding neighborhood of the hospice site, providing a holistic understanding. RESULTS: Data were collected at Maggie's Lodge hospice between November and December 2024 using the AIRP-HEAP and AIRP-HEAP secondary observation tools. The dataset is currently being cleaned, with analysis planned between May and December 2025. The anticipated results will highlight the importance of considering environmental factors in hospice environments and inform recommendations to improve end-of-life care for OPEH. CONCLUSIONS: Data collected using these audit tools can guide environmental modifications in hospice settings to facilitate aging and end-of-life care in the right place. Thus, this protocol paper aims to promote the adoption of best practices in hospice design to better support this marginalized population. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/73356.

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)0.044
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0440.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0400.010

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 head0.184
GPT teacher head0.618
Teacher spread0.434 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Research Protocols→Same topicHomelessness and Social Issues→French-language works237,207→