Assessing the Need for and Potential Role of a Day Hospice: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a qualitative case study as part of a needs assessment for a day hospice in a small Ontario city. Data were gathered from semi-structured interviews with 28 stakeholders: nine health care administrators, 11 health care providers, and eight lay people (terminally ill adults and informal caregivers). Respondents described support, counselling, social activities, and respite as key day hospice services. They also described several barriers to accessing services, including location, transportation, admission criteria, referrals, and fees. For most respondents, the ideal staff mix includes both volunteers and paid professionals in either a free-standing organization or institutionally linked hospice. Although the vast majority of participants were reluctant to impose admission criteria or other limitations on hospice clientele, they expressed the need to ensure equitable access to this scarce resource. Opinions varied greatly across stakeholder groups, highlighting the need to collect information from all relevant stakeholder groups when planning hospices.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".