Paediatric palliative care: a survey of paediatricians and family practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paediatric palliative care focuses on the enhancement of the quality of life for a child and family through a combination of active and compassionate therapies intended to comfort and support the child and family who are living with a life-threatening illness. The purpose of this study was to assess the experience with and confidence in providing paediatric palliative care of practicing family/general practitioners (GPs) and paediatricians. In addition, the learning needs, modes of learning and their methods of coping/self-care were questioned. METHODS: Two hundred paediatricians and GPs in the province of British Columbia were randomly selected to participate in a mailed survey. The survey consisted of three categories: demographic information, experience and knowledge of paediatric palliative care, educational needs and preferences for learning and provision of their own self-care. RESULTS: The response rate of completed surveys was 56.5%. Only 40.1% of respondents felt their knowledge and experience were adequate. Overall, 73.5% of the respondents reported that they would like to learn more about paediatric palliative care. Over 53% of those surveyed preferred that learning be offered remotely through either internet or correspondence. Seventy-four per cent of respondents expressed they had adequate or very adequate self-care strategies to meet their own needs of well-being. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the survey will guide the paediatric palliative care community to design programmes that will better educate practicing physicians and future physicians about paediatric palliative and end of life care, healthcare services and family communication and support.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".