MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416678787 · doi:10.62754/joe.v3i8.6996

Palliative Care in the Community: A Systematic Review of Integrated Services Combining Radiation Therapy for Pain Relief, Home-Based Nursing, and Family Physician Support

2025· article· W4416678787 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecohumanism · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldMedicine
TopicManagement of metastatic bone disease
Canadian institutionsInnovation Cluster (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative carePsychosocialMEDLINEInclusion (mineral)Cochrane LibraryQuality of life (healthcare)Systematic reviewPatient satisfaction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Palliative care in the community is increasingly recognized as essential for improving quality of life in patients with advanced illnesses. Integrated services that combine medical, nursing, and psychosocial support aim to provide comprehensive symptom management, particularly for pain, which remains a major concern. Radiation therapy (RT) has a well-established role in alleviating cancer-related pain, yet its integration with home-based nursing and primary care remains underexplored. Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness, feasibility, and outcomes of community-based palliative care models that integrate RT for pain relief, home nursing, and family physician support. Methods: A systematic search was conducted across PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for studies published up to 2025. Inclusion criteria comprised studies describing community-based palliative care models that incorporated RT for pain, home nursing interventions, and primary care physician involvement. Outcomes assessed included pain reduction, patient satisfaction, quality of life, hospital admissions, and service feasibility. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently by two reviewers, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Results: The review included 21 studies encompassing a total of 3,150 patients. Evidence suggests that integrating RT into home-based palliative care, supported by nursing and family physicians, significantly improved pain management and overall patient comfort. Patients experienced reductions in opioid use, fewer emergency visits, and higher satisfaction with care. Home-based nursing facilitated adherence to care plans, monitoring of treatment side effects, and psychosocial support, while family physicians ensured continuity of care and coordination with oncology services. Barriers identified included logistical challenges for RT delivery, limited interdisciplinary communication, and resource constraints. Conclusion: Community-based integrated palliative care models that combine RT for pain relief with home nursing and family physician support are feasible and effective in improving patient-centered outcomes. These models reduce hospital dependency and enhance quality of life, highlighting the importance of multidisciplinary collaboration in community settings. Future research should focus on standardized protocols, cost-effectiveness, and strategies to overcome logistical barriers in delivering RT in the community.

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.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.301 · 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