A Canadian Experience of Integrating Complementary Therapy in a Hospital Palliative Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The provision of complementary therapy in palliative care is rare in Canadian hospitals. An Ontario hospital's palliative care unit developed a complementary therapy pilot project within the interdisciplinary team to explore potential benefits. Massage, aromatherapy, Reiki, and Therapeutic Touch™ were provided in an integrated approach. This paper reports on the pilot project, the results of which may encourage its replication in other palliative care programs. OBJECTIVES: The intentions were (1) to increase patients'/families' experience of quality and satisfaction with end-of-life care and (2) to determine whether the therapies could enhance symptom management. RESULTS: Data analysis (n=31) showed a significant decrease in severity of pain, anxiety, low mood, restlessness, and discomfort (p<0.01, 95% confidence interval); significant increase in inner stillness/peace (p<0.01, 95% confidence interval); and convincing narratives on an increase in comfort. The evaluation by staff was positive and encouraged continuation of the program. CONCLUSIONS: An integrated complementary therapy program enhances regular symptom management, increases comfort, and is a valuable addition to interdisciplinary care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".