Expectations and desires of palliative health care personnel concerning their future work culture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Exploring the work culture of health care personnel is important in order to understand the challenges they face and the issues they experience. Believing in and shaping their futures indicates a working culture influenced by promoting factors. The aims of this study were to explore how health care workers at a Palliative Medicine Unit perceive their future work culture would be and whether they perceive that their expectations and desires will be fulfilled. Design: A correlational study. Methods: Health care personnel, physicians, nurses, physiotherapists, and others (N = 26) at a PMU in Norway completed a questionnaire according to the two perspectives, expectations (future) and desire (wish). The findings in these two perspectives were compared. The method seeks to explore what aspects dominate the particular work culture and identifying challenges, limitations, and opportunities. The findings were also compared with a reference group of 347 ratings of well-functioning Norwegian organizations, named the “Norwegian Norm”. Results: The findings for the wish perspective showed significant (p<0.05; p<0.01) higher rates for nurturing and synergy dimensions and significant lower rates (p>0.05; p>0.05) for opposition and control dimensions than the findings for the future perspective. Conclusions: It appears that the health care personnel wish for changes that they don’t believe they will achieve. The changes the respondents wish for are fewer negative work culture qualities, such as assertiveness and resignation, and more positive work culture qualities, such as engagement and empathy. Changes must be made to give the health care personnel improved working conditions and empowerment in order to change their situations to reflect what they wish for. The present findings can give an indication as to the direction that research ought to follow in subsequent 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".