Ethical issues in palliative care. Views of patients, families, and nonphysician staff.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Much of what we know about ethical issues in palliative care comes from the perceptions of physicians and ethicists. In this study our goal was to hear other voices and to gain first-hand knowledge of the possibly contrasting views of patients, their families, nurses, volunteers, and other team members on end-of-life issues. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Inpatient and consultation palliative care service of the Royal Victoria Hospital in Montreal, Que. PARTICIPANTS: Of 113 people interviewed, 13 were patients, 43 were family members, 32 were volunteers, 14 were nurses, and 11 were other staff. METHOD: Interviewers elicited subjects' perspectives on ethical issues. Content analysis was used to identify, code, and categorize themes in the data. MAIN FINDINGS: Communication difficulties and insufficient resources and staff were the most frequently mentioned problems in this palliative care setting. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study will help guide policy decisions and setting of educational priorities in end-of-life care, particularly regarding the importance of adequate communication.
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 | 0.016 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".