MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W107006923

Book review : Popular mythology

2001· article· en· W107006923 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Michael MacKenzie

Notice bibliographique

RevueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueHealth and Conflict Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésContext (archaeology)Palliative careMythologyReading (process)MedicineNursingHistoryLawPolitical scienceClassics
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Meeting death: in hospital, hospice, and at home Heather Robertson McClelland & Stewart, Toronto; 2000 352 pp. $34.99 (cloth) ISBN 0-7710-7562-6 I quite enjoyed reading this book, in which Heather Robertson recounts her experience caring for her dying father in Winnipeg in the mid-1990s. She relates a not uncommon story of fear, fatigue and frustration, much of which derived from a lack of good explanations, clear direction and assistance for her father and herself. This experience prompted her to examine the experience of death and dying in hospital, hospice and at home across Canada. And, to put this experience in a wider context, she visited a hospice facility in Uganda, dropping in to speak with Dame Cecily Saunders, founder of St. Christopher's Hospice in London on her way there. What she found was what most of us already know: the delivery of coordinated programs for the management of dying patients, including support for their families, is inconsistent across this country. What does exist is often misunderstood by patients, family, health professionals and society as a whole. Whatever path we travel, we all end up at the same destination: death. Many of us are not going to go quickly or quietly, and the process of our dying may be complicated and difficult. Robertson doubts our society's commitment to ensuring that our final days, months or years are as enjoyable and comfortable as possible. She also questions why so few resources are devoted to making palliative care programs available. Throughout the book she explores her own prejudices toward palliative care, her own fears and concerns regarding her parents and their deaths, and the many complications and changes we all go through in trying to come to grips with our mortality. Her book relates many patients' unfortunate stories. Often, these are stories of needlessly heightened anxiety and pain, missed or misleading diagnoses or prognoses, a lack of awareness of community resources by patients and families, and a lack of available expertise. She also describes many places and programs where the delivery of care and provision of support are excellent, but sadly notes that even some of our most well-established programs are being jeopardized by financial stress. As a family doctor who does palliative care consulting part time, I found that this book reaffirmed my own experience. We need to do a better job as citizens to ensure that our society is educated about the processes of dying and that programs to support patients and families are available and put to good use. Robertson sums up her feelings as she walks through the door of a hospice: Why am I here? Because the oncologist's promise to my father — you can die at home — was never fulfilled. [This hospice] is committed to supporting people with life-threatening illnesses within the comfort of their homes and families. I believe in that. I believe that it's cruel and cowardly to abandon the sick, and the dying are sick people who are getting sicker. I believe that all the sick have a right to expert, appropriate medical care, including nursing, for free. I know from experience that family members need instruction, reassurance, and companionship. I hope that if I can be there for someone else, someone will be there for me. I like the nautical term standing watch. Robertson's journey seems to have allowed her to gain some inner peace. Her book will help readers on their own journey with dying loved ones — not only in making peace with death, but in helping to ensure that “standing watch” is given the societal importance it deserves.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,058
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,005
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0610,003

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,037
Tête enseignante GPT0,407
Écart entre enseignants0,371 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2001
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCanadian Medical Association JournalMême sujetHealth and Conflict StudiesTravaux en français237 207