Review: Cultural conceptualizations of hospice palliative care: more similarities than differences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of culture is significant in hospice palliative care (HPC). While mainstream HPC has been well described in many Western countries, there is no conceptual clarity regarding the meaning of HPC among minority cultures and ethnicities. In this article we describe and critically appraise the findings of a literature synthesis of 15 qualitative studies regarding the conceptualization of HPC among culturally diverse populations. Three primary themes emerged regarding HPC. They highlight: (i) that HPC should attend to the physical, psychosocial and spiritual aspects of death and dying; (ii) that the ideal HPC provider demonstrates excellent knowledge and expertise about end-of-life care, and is respectful, genuine and compassionate; and (iii) that HPC should include a range of resources that alleviate the potential burdens associated with end-of-life care. The synthesis of this knowledge suggests that expectations regarding the scope of HPC across ethnic and cultural groups have more similarities than differences to the goals of mainstream HPC.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".