Challenges and barriers in assisting palliative care: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the progress made in realizing the advantages of integrating palliative care with disease management early on, a large number of individuals facing chronic life-threatening illnesses do not access palliative care until the final stage of their illness or not at all. Objective: This review aims to investigate the barriers and challenges that hinder timely access to palliative care and recommend ways to address these obstacles. Method: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow chart was used as a framework. An extensive search of various databases was undertaken, including the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL], PubMed, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online [MEDLINE], and Scopus. Results: The results of this research showed a variety of obstacles and difficulties in providing palliative care. The barriers that were recognized included cultural obstacles, insufficient resources, such as necessary medications and education, restricted palliative care research, and lack of curriculum. Overcoming these barriers facilitates accessing palliative care. Conclusion: Patients and family members face multiple barriers and challenges while accessing palliative care. To enhance the provision of palliative care, it is recommended that health system policymakers and planners address the barriers and challenges by implementing a culturally relevant and resource-appropriate framework for delivering palliative care. Keywords: palliative care, challenges, barriers, access
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 | 0.010 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".