Discourses Reproducing Gender Inequities in Hospice Palliative Home Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As home is a site where gendered attitudes, beliefs, and practices are reproduced, it is imperative that policies and practices promote gender equity in end-of-life care at home. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to critically analyze gender relations in the sociopolitical context of hospice palliative home care. METHODS: Using a critical feminist perspective, we examined gender relations between and among clients with cancer, their family caregivers, and nurses in hospice palliative home care. Ethnographic methods of in-depth interviews (n = 25), observations of home visits (n = 9), and review of documents (n = 12) were employed to expose gender (in)equities. FINDINGS: This critical analysis sheds light on institutional discourses that reproduce gender inequities: discourses of difference and denial; discourses of individuality, autonomy, and choice; and discourses of efficiency, objectivity, and rationality. Although gender was discounted, these neoliberal discourses reinforced traditional gender relations. DISCUSSION: Neoliberal discourses frame health and health-care experiences as resulting primarily from individual behaviors and biomedical factors, permitting health-care providers and policy makers to overlook power relations and the sociopolitical forces that obscure gender inequities. A critical perspective is needed to consider how social structures significantly shape everyday gendered experiences in hospice palliative home 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 | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".