Facilitating Day-to-Day Decision Making in Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a larger grounded theory study investigating the process by which palliative care patients make everyday choices, a secondary analysis of data was conducted to investigate the ways nurses support or restrict patients' participation in their care. Constant comparative methods were used to generate a detailed, contextually grounded description of nurses' strategies that influenced patients' participation in making everyday choices about their personal and nursing care. Data consisted of field notes derived from observations of patients and their caregivers in two hospital-based palliative care units and from 23 transcripts of interviews with participating nurses and patients. Nurses' efforts to support patients' participation in decision making were described as a four-phase process: getting to know the patient, enhancing opportunities for choice, being open to patient choice, and respecting choice. Factors influencing nurses' use of supportive behaviors and behaviors that restricted patients' participation in everyday choices were identified. Given the importance patients attributed to making choices, these findings provide a foundation for the design of nursing interventions that hold great potential for directly influencing quality of life.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".