Exploring traditional end-of-life beliefs, values, expectations, and practices among Chinese women living in England: Informing culturally safe care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study explores the end-of-life (EoL) beliefs, values, practices, and expectations of a select group of harder-to-reach Chinese women living in England. METHOD: A cultural safety approach was undertaken to interpret 11 in-depth, semistructured interviews. Interviews were conducted in Mandarin and Cantonese. Transcripts were translated and back-translated by two researchers. Findings were analyzed using the technical analytical principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: The key themes generated from our analysis include: acculturation; differential beliefs and norms in providing care: family versus health services; language and communication; Eastern versus Western spiritual practices and beliefs; and dying, death, and the hereafter. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: End-of-life discussions can be part of an arduous, painful, and uncomfortable process, particularly for migrants living on the margins of society in a new cultural setting. For some Chinese people living in the United Kingdom, end-of-life care requires attention to acculturation, particularly Western versus Eastern beliefs on religion, spirituality, burial practices, and provision of care, and the availability of culturally specific care, all of which encompass issues related to gender. Stories of a purposive sample of Chinese women were viewed through a cultural safety lens to gain a deeper understanding of how social and cultural norms and expectations, in addition to the pressures of acculturation, impact gendered roles and responsibilities. The analysis revealed variations between/within Eastern and Western culture that resulted in pronounced, and oftentimes gendered, differences in EoL care expectations.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".