The provision of generalist and specialist palliative care for patients with non-malignant respiratory disease in the North and Republic of Ireland: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous research and key guidelines have suggested potential models of palliative care for patients with COPD and interstitial lung disease. However, these recommendations are often not effectively implemented in clinical practice and are void of guidance regarding palliative care for patients with bronchiectasis, another form of non-malignant respiratory disease. The aim of this research was to explore generalist and specialist palliative care service provision for people with non-malignant respiratory disease in the North and Republic of Ireland. METHODS: Qualitative study involving a convenience sample of 17 bereaved carers and 18 healthcare professionals recruited from 2 rural and 2 urban sites on the Island of Ireland. Data collection consisted of semi-structured interviews with carers of patients with COPD, interstitial lung disease or bronchiectasis who had died 3-18 months previously; and 4 focus groups with healthcare professionals. Data analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Findings highlighted the lack of a clear model of holistic care delivery for patients with non-malignant respiratory disease and illuminated the varying levels of palliative care provision this client group experienced. Additionally, ambiguity amongst healthcare professionals regarding prognostication illuminated the importance of the provision of palliative care being based on patient need, not prognosis. This research developed a potential model of palliative care which may help healthcare professionals introduce palliative care, and specialist respiratory care, early in the disease trajectory of non-malignant respiratory disease, whilst also encouraging the involvement of specialist palliative care for complex symptom management. CONCLUSION: This research provides an important insight into a potential model of palliative care for people with non-malignant respiratory disease, inclusive of bronchiectasis. However, the feasibility of integrating this model into clinical practice requires further exploration.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".