MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072988170 · doi:10.1177/1049909114527338

Patient-Centered Care or Cultural Competence

2014· article· en· W2072988170 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Seto Nielsen, Jan Angus, Doris Howell, Amna Husain, Denise Gastaldo

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine® · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsMount Sinai HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of TorontoYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTabooEthnographyPalliative careCultural competenceCompetence (human resources)ImmigrationEnd-of-life careNursingPsychologyHealth careCultural issuesQualitative researchMedicineSocial psychologySociologyPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The literature about Chinese attitudes toward death and dying contains frequent references to strong taboos against open discussion about death; consequently, there is an assumption that dying at home is not the preferred option. This focused ethnographic study examined the palliative home care experiences of 4 Chinese immigrants with terminal cancer, their family caregivers, and home care nurses and key informant interviews with 11 health care providers. Three main themes emerged: (1) the many facets of taboo; (2) discursive tensions between patient-centered care and cultural competence; and (3) rethinking language barriers. Thus, training on cultural competence needs to move away from models that portray cultural beliefs as shared, fixed patterns, and take into account the complicated reality of everyday care provision at end of life in the home.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.012
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine®Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207