Preferences for place of care and place of death among informal caregivers of the terminally ill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: (1) To determine informal caregivers perceptions about place of care and place of death; and (2) to identify variables associated with a home death among terminally ill individuals who received in-home support services in a publicly funded home care system. PARTICIPANTS AND DESIGN: A total of 216 informal caregivers participated in a bereavement interview. Data collection included care recipient and informal caregiver characteristics, the use of and satisfaction with community services, and preferences about place of death. RESULTS: Most caregivers reported that they and the care recipient had a preferred place of death (77 and 68%, respectively) with over 63% reporting home as the preferred place of death. Caregivers had a greater preference for an institutional death (14%) than care recipients (4.7%). While 30% of care recipients did not die in their preferred location, most caregivers (92%) felt, in retrospect, that where the care recipient died was the appropriate place of death. Most caregivers reported being satisfied with the care that was provided. The odds of dying at home were greater when the care recipient stated a preference for place of death (OR: 2.92; 95% CI: 1.25, 6.85), and the family physician made home visits during the care recipients last month of life (Univariate odds ratios (OR): 4.42; 95% CI: 1.46, 13.36). DISCUSSION: The ethic of self-control and choice for the care recipient must be balanced with consideration for the well being of the informal caregiver and responsiveness of the community service system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".