Access to hospice care: multi-professional specialist perspectives in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research addressing the nature of hospice referrals focuses primarily on the effect of late referral and the majority of studies are based in North America. Using health care professionals as key informants, the goal was to describe the hospice referral system used in the Western Cape Province of South Africa from the perspective of nursing sisters, medical doctors, and social workers. Semi-structured interviews with 29 such individuals were conducted at 15 rural, urban and peri-urban sites, exploring their perceptions towards, and experiences with, patient referral to hospice programmes. Interpretative descriptive design allowed for a comprehensive description of the referral process as well as an extension of the data based on the perspectives of the three stakeholder groups. The majority of hospice referrals originated from either community-based clinics or state hospitals. Three main themes, centring around the process of referring, (lack of) standardization, and (lack of) knowledge, arose from the analysis of the transcripts. An interpretation of the themes led to the development of a model describing the ideal hospice referral system for South Africa.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".