Nurses' Perceptions of Hospice Palliative Care Volunteers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 50 nurses (hospital and home care) responded to a survey designed to measure: (1) their attitudes toward, and knowledge of, hospice palliative care volunteers; (2) the types of tasks they felt it was appropriate for volunteers to perform; and (3) how valuable they felt different members of the hospice palliative care team are. In addition, they were asked to respond to some open-ended questions (eg, "Do you feel that it is appropriate for hospice palliative care volunteers to know patient medical information?"). The nurses' responses to the "Attitude/Knowledge" part of the survey revealed that they generally held positive attitudes toward volunteers. The majority of the nurses felt that it was appropriate for volunteers to perform most of the tasks listed, except for hands-on patient care. Nurses rated the value of nurses, family members, doctors, and pharmacists significantly higher than volunteers. Fifty-three percent of the nurses felt that volunteers should know patient medical information, and 77% thought that volunteers should have the opportunity to provide input regarding patient care. Also, 75% of the nurses felt that volunteers made their jobs easier, and 56% felt that volunteers should be included in team meetings. When asked to list the topics covered in a hospice palliative care volunteer training program, 73% of the nurses indicated that they were not sure or did not know what topics were covered, indicating a lack of knowledge regarding volunteer training.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".