Development and Implementation of a Survey to Assess Health-Care Provider’s Competency, Attitudes, and Knowledge About Perinatal Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perinatal palliative care is an emerging area of health care. To date, no published tools assess health-care provider's knowledge and level of comfort in providing such care. A 2-phase study was undertaken to develop and implement a survey to evaluate the self-assessed competency, attitudes, and knowledge of health-care providers working in perinatal palliative care. Phase 1 included a review of the literature and appraisal of palliative and death-related instruments to inform the initial draft of the Perinatal Palliative Care Survey (PPCS). Twenty-four Canadian pediatric palliative care specialists critiqued the PPCS, establishing its face and content validity. Phase 2 involved administering the PPCS at 4 sites across Canada, resulting in 167 responses from nurses, physicians, and midwives. The majority of participants responded that they possessed a degree of comfort in providing perinatal palliative care, particularly with assessing pain (76%), managing pain (69%), assessing other symptoms (85%), and managing other symptoms (78%). Two areas where participants level of confidence or extreme confidence was diminished included having conversations with families about the possibility of their infant dying (55%) and knowing and accessing community palliative care resources (32%). Responses in the knowledge section identified gaps related to opioid use, pharmacological interventions for breathlessness, pain behaviors, and tolerance developed to opioids and sedatives. Eighty-six percent of respondents stated that if education about palliative care was made available, they would participate with priority topics identified as communication with families (75%), managing symptoms (69%), pain management (69%), and ethical issues (66%). The PPCS provides a useful assessment to determine the educational needs of health-care providers delivering perinatal palliative 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".