The Role of Physical Therapists Within Hospice and Palliative Care in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Little is known regarding the extent to which physical therapy is integrated into Hospice and Palliative Care (HPC). The purpose of this study was to describe perceptions of physical therapists (PTs) regarding their role within HPC or working with patients having life-threatening illnesses and to develop a conceptual framework depicting a PTs role within HPC and factors affecting it. PARTICIPANTS: Ten PTs, 5 from the United States and 5 from Canada, with at least 5 years of physical therapy experience and 5 years working experience with patients having life-threatening illnesses or in HPC. METHODS: Demographic data were collected by electronic questionnaire. A semistructured interview was conducted with each participant to investigate their perceptions about the role of PTs in HPC. DATA ANALYSIS: Interview results were analyzed for trends between participants, practice settings, regions, and other sociocultural aspects. The constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis was used to identify similarities and differences and to develop themes and concepts relative to the role of PT in HPC. RESULTS: Participants identified their 3 primary roles in HPC: providing patient/family care, serving as an interdisciplinary team member, and fulfilling professional responsibilities outside of direct patient care. They described factors within and outside direct patient care which influenced their roles. Concepts included shifting priorities, care across the continuum, and changing perceptions of PTs within HPC. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study described perceptions of the role of PTs within HPC that may be utilized when coordinating future strategies to appropriately promote and expand the role.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".