MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138916575 · doi:10.1191/026921600674582192

Attitudes and beliefs of palliative care physicians regarding communication with terminally ill cancer patients

2000· article· en· W2138916575 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative Medicine · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminally illMedicinePalliative careCancerTerminal careFamily medicineIntensive care medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The subject of communication between palliative care physicians and their patients regarding their diagnosis and prognosis has not been extensively researched. The purpose of this survey was to compare the attitudes and beliefs of palliative care specialists regarding communication with the terminally ill in Europe, South America, and Canada. A sample of palliative care physicians from South America (Argentina and Brazil), French-speaking Europe, and Canada were identified, and posted a questionnaire. Physicians who stated that they practised palliative care at least 30% of their time were considered evaluable as palliative care specialists. Of a total of 272 questionnaires, 228 were returned (84%); and 182/228 (81%) respondents were considered to be palliative care specialists. Palliative care physicians in all three regions believed that cancer patients should be informed of their diagnosis and the terminal nature of their illness. Physicians reported that at least 60% of their patients knew their diagnosis and the terminal stage of their illness in 52% and 24% of cases in South America, and 69% and 38% of cases in Europe, respectively. All physicians agreed that 'do not resuscitate' orders should be present, and should be discussed with the patient in all cases. While 93% of Canadian physicians stated that at least 60% of their patients wanted to know about the terminal stage of their illness, only 18% of South American, and 26% of European physicians said this (P < 0.001). Similar results were found when the physicians were asked the percentage of families who want patients to know the terminal stage of their illness. However, almost all of the physicians agreed that if they had terminal cancer they would like to know. There was a significant association between patient based decision-making and female sex (P = 0.007), older age (P = 0.04), and physicians from Canada and South America (P < 0.001). Finally, in their daily decision making, South American physicians were significantly more likely to support beneficence and justice as compared with autonomy. Canadian physicians were more likely to support autonomy as compared with beneficence. In summary, our findings suggest that there are major regional differences in the attitudes and beliefs of physicians regarding communication at the end of life. More research is badly needed on the attitudes and beliefs of patients, families, and health care professionals in different regions of the world.

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)0.000
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 score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.321 · 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