Wiisokotaatiwin: development and evaluation of a community-based palliative care program in Naotkamegwanning First Nation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Approximately 474 000 Indigenous people live in 617 First Nations communities across Canada; 125 of those communities are located in Ontario, primarily in rural and remote areas. Common rural health challenges, including for palliative care, involve quality and access. The need for culturally relevant palliative care programs in First Nations communities is urgent because the population is aging with a high burden of chronic and terminal disease. Because local palliative care is lacking, most First Nations people now leave their culture, family and community to receive care in distant hospitals or long-term care homes. Due to jurisdictional issues, a policy gap exists where neither federal nor provincial governments takes responsibility for funding palliative care in First Nations communities. Further, no Canadian program models existed for how different levels of government can collaborate to fund and deliver palliative care in First Nations communities. This article describes an innovative, community-based palliative care program (Wiisokotaatiwin) developed in rural Naotkamegwanning, and presents the results of a process evaluation of its pilot implementation. The evaluation aimed to (i) document the program's pilot implementation, (ii) assess progress toward intended program outcomes and (iii) assess the perceived value of the program. METHODS: The Wiisokotaatiwin Program was developed and implemented over 5 years using participatory action research (http://www.eolfn.lakeheadu.ca). A mixed-method evaluation approach was adopted. Descriptive data were extracted from program documents (eg client registration forms). Client tracking forms documented service provision data for a 4-month sample period. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through client and family member questionnaires (n=7) and healthcare provider questionnaires (n=22). A focus group was conducted with the program leadership team responsible for program development. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. An inductive approach was used to identify themes in the qualitative data related to the evaluation questions. RESULTS: The findings demonstrated the program was implemented as intended, and that there was a need for the program, with six clients on the 10-month pilot. The findings also indicated achievement of program-level outcomes and progress toward system-level outcomes. Clients/families and healthcare providers were satisfied with the program and perceived it to be meeting its objectives. The program model was also perceived to be transferrable to other First Nations communities. The results demonstrate how a rural First Nations community can build capacity and develop a palliative care program tailored to their unique culture and context that builds upon and is integrated into existing services. CONCLUSIONS: The Wiisokotaatiwin Program allowed community members to receive their palliative care at home, improved client experience and enhanced service integration. This article provides a First Nations specific model for a palliative care program that overcomes jurisdictional issues at the local level, and a methodology for developing and evaluating community-based palliative care programs in rural First Nations communities. The article demonstrates how local, federal and provincial healthcare providers and organizations collaborated to build capacity, fund and deliver community-based palliative care. The described process of developing the program has applicability in other First Nations (Indigenous) communities and for healthcare decisionmakers.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 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 it