Communication in Palliative Care and About End of Life: A State-of-the-Art Literature Review of Conversation-Analytic Research in Healthcare
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
I review conversation analytic research on healthcare interactions in palliative care, and end-of-life preferences and plans conversations in other settings.The review process drew on established systematic review methods.Twenty-two publications were included.Key themes were initiating and managing the topics of dying, of prognosis, and of advance care planning, and interactionally managing emotions.There is substantial, cumulative evidence about patterns and practices for initiating sensitive conversations, managing emotions, and indirectly referring to death.Two of 22 studies examined interactional consequences of companions accompanying patients, and two examined pain assessment.Current evidence is restricted: 21 of 22 studies were in secondary/tertiary care and all were in high-income countries, and most involved specialist physicians.Nevertheless, findings contribute to conversation analytic scholarship on delicacy, emotion in interaction, and indirect reference.Healthcare applications include contributions to training in communicating about sensitive topics and to policy on talking about dying.Data presented are in British English, U.S. English, Canadian English, Swiss-French, and Japanese. Overview and backgroundThis state-of-the-art review examines published findings from conversation analytic research on palliative and end of life (EoL) healthcare interactions.The studies reviewed examine recurrent difficulties entailed in these high-stakes, important conversations-conversations that are often daunting for all parties involved.Most of this work aims to describe and understand interactional means by which people limit, circumvent, or overcome these difficulties, and thereby achieve palliative care and EoL conversations of substance and sensitivity.A small number of the studies examine ways in which healthcare professionals (HCPs) can exacerbate the difficulties entailed.My focus is on interactions in which people approach and address current and future states of affairs and events that are arguably the most painful, distressing, frightening, and-in a senseunknowable matters that humans deal with in our lives.Besides being emotionally charged, other interactional challenges arise.These include uncertainties about at least three matters: how long someone will live, the precise nature and course of future symptoms, and the availability and
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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