Understanding of the term “palliative care”: A Canadian survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the results of two studies conducted in Atlantic Canada to evaluate people's understanding of palliative care. In Study 1, a sample of adults were asked to respond to a brief survey. Respondents were asked if they had ever heard of palliative care. Those who answered "yes" were asked to respond to a number of additional questions about palliative care. The results of Study 1 revealed that over three-quarters of the respondents (75.3 percent) had heard of palliative care, however, only about half of these (48.4 percent) defined it as care for terminally ill or dying persons. Of those who had heard of palliative care, the vast majority (92.3 percent) said they would use palliative care services if they had a terminally ill family member In Study 2, respondents were presented with a written description of palliative care. After reading the description, respondents were asked to indicate whether or not they knew (prior to reading the description) what palliative care was. Those who answered "yes" were asked to provide a written explanation of how they first learned about palliative care; those who answered "no" were asked to provide written suggestions of how they believed information about palliative care should be disseminated to the public. The results revealed that 60.5 percent of the respondents knew about palliative care before reading the description. Of those who knew about palliative care, 40.8 percent of them first learned about it through personal experience with the death of a family member or close friend. Of those who did not know what palliative care was, the suggestions they gave for creating community awareness of palliative care included: information disseminated by healthcare providers, use of pamphlets, the media, and the church.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".