A Survey of Family Members’ Satisfaction With the Services Provided by Hospice Palliative Care Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 22 family members, whose deceased loved ones had used the services of a hospice palliative care volunteer, responded to a brief survey designed to assess the importance of the different kinds of support offered to them (family members) by the volunteer, their impressions of the volunteers' personal qualities/characteristics, their general experiences with the volunteer, and their overall satisfaction with the volunteer services. The kind of support that received the highest importance rating from family members was the opportunity to take a much-needed break from the demands of caring for their loved one, closely followed by emotional support, the volunteer spending time with them, and the volunteer providing them with information. Family members rated volunteers highly on a list of qualities/characteristics that exemplify individuals who are effective in this role. In all, 85% of the family members felt that their volunteer was well trained and 95% did not feel that their or their loved one's privacy had been invaded by having a volunteer. Overall, family members were very satisfied with the volunteer support they received. Some limitations of the study are discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".