Understanding the Provision of Palliative Care in the Context of Primary Health Care: Qualitative Research Findings from a Pilot Study in a Community Setting in Chile
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: This pilot study looked at the provision of palliative care in the context of primary health care in a developing setting in Chile. RESEARCH OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to delineate the experience of palliative care from the perspective of patients and health care professionals; to examine primary health care as a propitious milieu for palliative care in developing countries; and to generate opportunities for international collaboration between Chile and Canada. METHODOLOGY: The study followed tenets of hermeneutic phenomenology and participatory research. Research activities included audio-taped, in-depth individual interviews and participant observation in the home. RESULTS: Patients expressed contentment with the services provided by the program. The support of family members, friends, neighbours, and the palliative team was critical to their home care. Health care professionals showed great enthusiasm for keeping the palliative care program going in the primary health care setting despite limited resources. They followed WHO and national guidelines for symptom relief and involved families in the care of the sick person. CONCLUSION: The provision of palliative care through primary health care increases access in developing countries.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".