MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329921946 · doi:10.1177/1049732315609571

Gendered Processes in Hospice Palliative Home Care for Seniors With Cancer and Their Family Caregivers

2015· article· en· W2329921946 on OpenAlexaff
Nisha Sutherland, Catherine Ward‐Griffin, Carol L. McWilliam, Kelli Stajduhar

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaWestern UniversityLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedPalliative careEgalitarianismContext (archaeology)Critical ethnographySociologyIdeologyGender studiesHealth careNursingEthnographyPsychologyMedicinePolitical sciencePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been limited investigation into the processes that shape gender (in)equities in hospice palliative home care. As part of a larger critical ethnographic study, we examined how and why gender relations occur in this context. Using a critical feminist lens, we conducted in-depth interviews with clients living with terminal cancer, their family caregivers and primary nurses; observations of agency home visits; and review of institutional documents. A gender-based analysis revealed that gender enactments of Regulating Gender Relations were legitimized through ideological processes of Normalizing Gender Relations and Equalizing Gender Relations (Re)produced through institutional discourses of individualism and egalitarianism, these gendered processes both advantaged and disadvantaged men and women in hospice palliative home care. Findings suggest that to promote equity, health care providers and policy makers must attend to gender as a prevalent social determinant of health and health care. Implications for policy, practice, education, and research are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.387
GPT teacher head0.549
Teacher spread0.162 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207