Relational Experiences of Family Caregivers Providing Home-Based End-of-Life Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The multiple relationships involved in home-based end-of-life care have received little systematic analysis. As part of a focused ethnographic study examining client-caregiver-provider relational care experiences within the sociocultural context of home-based end-of-life care, this article describes the provision of end-of-life care to older adults with advanced cancer from the perspective of family caregivers. Data were collected through in-depth interviews (n = 16) with 4 family caregivers and participant observations in each of the 4 households over a 6- to 8-month period. Family caregiving in home-based end-of-life care was portrayed in this study as 3 dialectical relational care experiences: (1) prioritizing care recipient needs-ignoring own needs, (2) feeling connected-feeling isolated, and (3) juggling to manage-struggling to survive. Study findings suggest that the sociocultural context of end-of-life care is not conducive to quality care and provide several insights for future directions in nursing practice, policy, and research.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".