On the road again: Patient perspectives on commuting for palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this research project was to gain an understanding of the experiences of rural cancer patients who commute to an urban cancer center for palliative care. METHOD: The study utilized a mixed method design. Fifteen individuals with a palliative designation participated in semi-structured interviews and filled out the Problems and Needs in Palliative Care Questionnaire. RESULTS: Qualitative findings included three major themes: cultures of rural life and care, strategies for commuting, and the effects of commuting. Participants valued their rural lifestyles and gained significant support from their communities. Strategies included preparing for the trip with particular attention to pain management, making the most of time, and maintaining significant relationships. Establishing a routine helped to offset the anxiety of commuting. Commuting was costly but the quality of life and supportive relationships obtained through treatment were significant benefits. Questionnaire data suggested that participants were experiencing a number of problems but few indicated they desired more professional attention to those problems. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Rural lifestyles are often an important part of overall well-being and commuting for care is both costly and complex. Health care providers should assist individuals to weigh the relative contributions of staying in their rural locale versus commuting for care to their overall quality of life. Palliative-care individuals in this study indicated a number of ongoing problems but were not inclined to seek further assistance from health care providers in addressing those problems. Clinicians should actively inquire about problems and further research is needed to understand why patients are reluctant to seek help.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".