Palliative Care Experience in the Last 3 Months of Life: A Quantitative Comparison of Care Provided in Residential Hospices, Hospitals, and the Home From the Perspectives of Bereaved Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study captured the end-of-life care experiences across various settings from bereaved caregivers of individuals who died in residential hospice. METHODS: A retrospective, observational design using the CaregiverVoice survey with bereaved caregivers of patients in 22 hospices in Ontario, Canada. The survey assessed various dimensions of the patient's care experiences across multiple care settings in the last 3 months of life. RESULTS: A total of 1153 caregivers responded to the survey (44% response rate). In addition to hospice care, caregivers reported that 74% of patients received home care, 61% had a hospitalization, 42% received care at a cancer center, and 10% lived in a nursing home. Most caregivers (84%-89%) rated the addressing of each support domain (relief of physical pain, relief of other symptoms, spiritual support, and emotional support) by hospice as either "excellent" or "very good." These proportions were less favorable for home care (40%-47%), cancer center (46%-54%), and hospital (37%-48%). Significantly, better experiences were reported for the last week of life where hospice was considered the main setting of care, opposed to other settings ( P < .0001 across domains). Overall, across settings pain management tended to be the highest-rated domain and spiritual support the lowest. CONCLUSION: This is one of few quantitative examinations of the care experience of patients who accessed multiple care settings in the last months of life and died in a specialized setting such as residential hospice. These findings emphasize the importance of replicating the hospice approach in institutional and home settings, including greater attention to emotional and spiritual dimensions of care.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".