When a Desired Home Death Does Not Occur: The Consequences of Broken Promises
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence shows that most people prefer to die at home; however, the majority of expected deaths occur away from home. Although home deaths require family caregiver (FCG) commitment and care, we understand very little about their experiences in this context. AIM: The study's aim was to gain a better understanding of the experiences of FCGs when circumstances prevented a desired home death for a family member with advanced cancer. DESIGN: An interpretive description approach was used. Data collection involved semistructured interviews. Field notes and reflective journaling aided interpretive and analytical processes. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted in western Canada and included 18 bereaved FCGs. RESULTS: FCGs were committed to the promises made to care for their family member at home until death. These promises were challenged by a lack of preparedness for caregiving, difficulty accessing professional support and information, and frustration with the inadequate help they received. The events that precipitated dying family members leaving their home for hospital or hospice were unexpected and often influenced by FCGs' lack of situation-specific knowledge and ability to cope with complex caregiving responsibilities. FCGs found it extremely challenging to reconcile with breaking their promise to care at home until death and many were unable to do so. CONCLUSIONS: FCGs' despair about not being able to keep their promise for a home death was related to complicated bereavement. Prospective studies of the experiences of FCGs who are aiming for home deaths are needed to identify both short- and long-term interventions to effectively support death at home.
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 | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".