A Descriptive Study Evaluating Perinatal Healthcare Providers' Perspectives of Palliative Programming in 3 Canadian Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A paucity of research has evaluated the perspectives of the broader healthcare team regarding perinatal palliative care. This study examines the views of healthcare providers involved in perinatal palliative care in 3 tertiary care hospitals in Canada. Developing an understanding of their perspectives of care provision, as well as the interactions that took place with families and other teams while providing perinatal palliative care, was of interest. Twenty-nine healthcare providers were involved in 4 focus groups and 5 individual interviews. Data were transcribed and content analysis was undertaken. The overarching theme of communication materialized from the data. Within this theme were 3 subthemes, each highlighting an aspect of communication that impacted care provision: connecting through proximity, protected time and dedicated space, and flexibility and formality. The study also describes a model of integrated perinatal palliative care program development and explains where each of the 3 sites falls along this continuum. The development of formal programs in these facilities is varied and recommendations are included to enhance communication and assist in providing improved and integrated programming.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".