Heightened vulnerabilities and better care for all: Disability and end-of-life care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the extent to which vulnerability was present or heightened as a result of either disability or end-of-life policies, or both, when people with disabilities face end of life. METHOD: People with disabilities and policy makers from four Canadian provinces and at the federal level were interviewed or participated in focus groups to identify interactions between disability policies and end-of-life policies. Relevant policy documents in each jurisdiction were also analyzed. Key theme analysis was used on transcripts and policy documents. Fact sheets identifying five key issues were developed and shared in the four provinces with policy makers and people with disabilities. RESULTS: Examples of heightened vulnerability are evident in discontinuity from formal healthcare providers with knowledge of conditions and impairments, separation from informal care providers and support systems, and lack of coordination with and gaps in disability-related supports. When policies seek to increase the dignity, autonomy, and capacity of all individuals, including those who experience heightened vulnerability, they can mitigate or lessen some of the vulnerability. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Specific policies addressing access to community-based palliative care, coordination between long-standing formal care providers and new care providers, and support and respect for informal care providers, can redress these heightened vulnerabilities. The interactions between disability and end-of-life policies can be used to create inclusive end-of-life policies, resulting in better end-of-life care for all people, including people with disabilities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".