Rural Nonphysician Providers' Perspectives on Palliative Care Services in Northwestern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most palliative care in rural remote areas is provided by nonphysicians. This paper reports a survey of interdisciplinary rural health service providers (not including physicians) to identify the strengths and weaknesses in palliative care service delivery in a rural and remote region in northwestern Ontario, Canada. Questionnaires were sent to 156 nurses, homemakers, social workers, and pastoral care workers who care for terminally ill persons and their families, and 122 were completed and returned (response rate 78%). Consistent with practice in most rural areas, 90% of respondents were generalists. Respondents identified several problems with palliative care services, including inadequate training for caregivers, inadequate support services for family and professional caregivers, inadequate human resources, and lack of organized volunteer programs. Suggestions for improvements included better education for service providers; better availability of palliative care services; more counseling and support services for patients, family members, and professionals; and greater availability of respite beds. Overall, respondents rated clients' needs as being better met than their own. The most frequently reported problems for care providers were related to the lack of supports for care provision.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".