A Case Study Exploring the Implications of One Alberta Rural Community’s Experience with Planning Their Own Hospice Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are major implications for rural health care when citizens are organizing themselves to plan and address their own community health care needs. This article describes how one community in rural Alberta, Canada, worked to plan for their rapidly increasing hospice care needs. Specifically, it explores the factors that both helped and hindered them as they grew from a handful of citizens to a highly organized incorporated organization over a period of several years. The results reinforce that communities are not simply 'engaged' in such work but are actually leading the way in the planning, and delivering of social and health supports and services. Their story emphasizes the significant lack and neglect of needed healthcare in rural communities and shows, once again, how rural communities continue to do more with less by building on their own resources and capacities. This study advances our understanding about how hospice care, a major health care service in high demand, is being provided by community members as a result of governments downloading health service planning onto the shoulders of local communities in the name of ‘community engagement’. Keywords: rural hospice, citizen planners, community development, community engagement ----------------------------------------------------------- Résumé Il y a des implications majeures pour les services de santé ruraux quand les citoyens organisent eux-mêmes la planification et la manière de répondre à leurs propres services de santé dans la communauté. Cet article décrit dans quelle mesure une communauté rurale d'Alberta, au Canada, a travaillé à la planification d'accroître rapidement les soins palliatifs. En particulier, il explore les facteurs qui les ont à la fois aidés et freinés alors qu'ils passaient d'une poignée de citoyens à une grande organisation constituée et organisée sur une période de plusieurs années. Les résultats réaffirment que les communautés ne sont pas simplement 'engagées' dans un tel travail mais ouvrent en fait la voie à la planification et à l'offre de supports et de services sociaux et de santé. Leur histoire met l'accent sur le manque significatif et la négligence des besoins en santé dans les communautés rurales et montre, une fois encore, comment les communautés rurales continuent à faire plus avec moins en construisant avec leurs propres ressources et capacités. Cette étude nous permet de mieux comprendre dans quelle mesure les soins palliatifs, une prestation de soins de santé majeure et hautement demandée, sont fournis par les membres de la communauté du fait que les gouvernements transfèrent les services de planification de service de santé aux communautés locales au nom de l''engagement communautaire'.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".