MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108960380 · doi:10.1186/1472-684x-10-1

Mapping hospice patients' perception and verbal communication of end-of-life needs: an exploratory mixed methods inquiry

2011· article· en· W2108960380 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Palliative Care · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrounded theoryEnd-of-life careQualitative researchPsychologyExploratory researchNeeds assessmentPalliative carePerceptionQuality of life (healthcare)Think aloud protocolMedicineApplied psychologyNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive "Total Pain" assessments of patients' end-of-life needs are critical for providing improved patient-clinician communication, assessing needs, and offering high quality palliative care. However, patients' needs-based research methodologies and findings remain highly diverse with their lack of consensus preventing optimum needs assessments and care planning. Mixed-methods is an underused yet robust "patient-based" approach for reported lived experiences to map both the incidence and prevalence of what patients perceive as important end of life needs. METHODS: Findings often include methodological artifacts and their own selection bias. Moving beyond diverse findings therefore requires revisiting methodological choices. A mixed methods research cross-sectional design is therefore used to reduce limitations inherent in both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. Audio-taped phenomenological "thinking aloud" interviews of a purposive sample of 30 hospice patients are used to identify their vocabulary for communicating perceptions of end-of-life needs. Grounded theory procedures assisted by QSR-NVivo software is then used for discovering domains of needs embedded in the interview narratives. Summary findings are translated into quantified format for presentation and analytical purposes. RESULTS: Findings from this mixed-methods feasibility study indicate patients' narratives represent 7 core domains of end-of-life needs. These are (1) time, (2) social, (3) physiological, (4) death and dying, (5) safety, (6) spirituality, (7) change & adaptation. The prevalence, rather than just the occurrence, of patients' reported needs provides further insight into their relative importance. CONCLUSION: Patients' perceptions of end-of-life needs are multidimensional, often ambiguous and uncertain. Mixed methodology appears to hold considerable promise for unpacking both the occurrence and prevalence of cognitive structures represented by verbal encoding that constitute patients' narratives. Communication is a key currency for delivering optimal palliative care. Therefore understanding the domains of needs that emerge from patient-based vocabularies indicate potential for: (1) developing more comprehensive clinical-patient needs assessment tools; (2) improved patient-clinician communication; and (3) moving toward a theoretical model of human needs that can emerge at the end of life.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.798

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.269
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.167 · 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