Physicians’ and Pharmacists’ Attitudes toward the use of Sedation at the End of Life: Influence of Prognosis and Type of Suffering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
End-of-life sedation remains a controversial and ill-defined clinical practice; its applications vary considerably. With this in mind, a study was conducted using a 2 x 2 experimental design. The variables experimented with were prognosis (short- or long-term) and type of suffering (physical or existential). The goal was to study the influence of the two independent variables on attitude toward sedation. Four clinical vignettes were completed by 124 clinicians, doctors, and pharmacists working in different palliative care environments in the Province of Quebec. The results indicate that the type of suffering influences a subject's attitude to end-of-life sedation. Thus, when a patient was suffering physically, the respondents were significantly in favour of sedation, whereas they were not in favour of this practice if the suffering was existential. Lastly, it is clear that health professionals are uncomfortable when confronted with their patients' existential suffering. This is an issue worth exploring in future studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".