Volunteer Satisfaction and Program Evaluation at a Pediatric Hospice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Volunteers are essential to the functioning of palliative care programs and serve as important members of the hospice team. They devote much time, effort, and diverse skills and talent to enhance the quality of care at Roger's House--a pediatric palliative care hospice. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate volunteering in a pediatric palliative care hospice and to assess the level of satisfaction from the perspective of hospice volunteers. METHODS: A survey was sent to all active Roger's House volunteers. Questions were related to their demographics, their overall impression of their volunteering experience, and 47 closed (fixed-choice) statements, divided into 6 parts: 1) Orientation; 2) Training; 3) Feedback/Performance; 4) Communication; 5) Social Contacts; and 6) Value and Respect. Each statement was rated by the participants using a six-point Likert rating scale. RESULTS: Volunteers fully completing the survey were 159 online and 4 on paper, giving a response rate of 66%. The greater number (66, 40.5%) of respondents were 50 years or older and they were mostly female (141, 86.5%). Successes identified included the volunteers' orientation, training, and feedback and performance. Challenges identified included certain aspects of communication, social contacts, and respect/value for the volunteer. CONCLUSION: Volunteers at Roger's House are generally satisfied with their volunteer position and the environment in which they work. Greater insight into volunteer satisfaction and factors that bring feelings of reward and/or dissatisfaction to the volunteers have allowed Roger's House to identify informed and effective interventions to improve the quality of and satisfaction with the hospice volunteer program.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".