Variations in and factors influencing family members' decisions for palliative home care
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to describe the variations in and factors influencing family members' decisions to provide home-based palliative care. Findings were part of a larger ethnographic study examining the social context of home-based palliative caregiving. Data from participant observations and in-depth interviews with family members (n=13) providing care to a palliative patient at home, interviews with bereaved family members (n=47) and interviews with health care providers (n=25) were subjected to constant comparative analysis. Findings indicate decisions were characterized by three types. Some caregivers made uninformed decisions, giving little consideration to the implications of their decisions. Others made indifferent decisions, whereby they reluctantly agreed to provide care at home, and still others negotiated decisions for home care with the dying person. Decisions were influenced by three factors: fulfilling a promise to the patient to be cared for at home, desiring to maintain a 'normal family life' and having previous negative encounters with institutional care. Findings suggest interventions are needed to better prepare caregivers for their role, enhance caregivers' choice in the decision-making process, improve care for the dying in hospital, and consider the development of alternate options for care.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it