MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2600103779

Hospice care in Calgary

2016· article· en· W2600103779 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ronald Spice, Monica Lau, Grace Perez, Nathan Turley, Tanvir Chowdhury Turin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCollege of Family Physicians of CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralPalliative careFamily medicineMedicineThematic analysisNursingDisengagement theoryHospice careCoding (social sciences)Qualitative researchGerontology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To explore Calgary family physicians’ knowledge about hospices, their attitudes toward the referral process, and their understanding of barriers to referral for hospice care. Design Surveys were mailed to 400 randomly selected participants. The survey contained 18 questions related to hospice care, physician experience, attitudes, and perceived barriers to making a hospice referral. Setting Calgary, Alta. Participants Family physicians. Main outcome measures Survey responses were analyzed quantitatively using the ![Graphic][1] 2 goodness-of-fit test, Kruskal-Wallis tests, and logistic regression analyses to examine univariate associations. Qualitative analysis of open-ended questions was done by content analysis and thematic coding. Results In total, 104 surveys were mailed back. Family physicians agreed that palliative care in a hospice setting can greatly improve quality of life for patients, but only 2 of 6 knowledge questions about hospice care were answered correctly by most. Family physicians with special areas of interest or subspecialties were more likely to feel well-informed about hospice referrals ( P = .017), indicated a higher comfort level discussing hospice and palliative care ( P = .030), and were less likely to defer discussing it with patients ( P = .023). Physicians with a special interest in palliative medicine were more likely to correctly answer the knowledge questions ( P < .034) and to be familiar with the referral process ( P < .001), patient eligibility ( P < .001), and the palliative home care program ( P = .003). Qualitative analysis revealed support for palliative home care and consultation services but concerns about caregiver coping and family issues. Concerns about disengagement of family physicians and uncertainty about the referral process are obstacles to referral. Conclusion While Calgary family physicians are appreciative of hospice care, there are knowledge gaps. It is important to engage family physicians in the referral process. [1]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.707
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family Physician→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→