Opinions of palliative care physicians regarding renaming the specialty supportive care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
10126 Background: It has been suggested that the name “palliative care” poses a barrier to referral to palliative care, particularly early in the disease course. Although studies have reported that oncologists believe they would refer earlier to a service called “supportive care”, the opinions of palliative care physicians are unknown. We conducted a survey of Canadian palliative care physicians to solicit their opinions on this subject. Methods: Practicing palliative care physicians identified by the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians were sent a survey by mail and email. Multivariate linear regression using stepwise selection was performed to determine factors associated with the degree to which physicians agreed with the statement “The specialty of palliative care should be renamed supportive care” (entry p ≤ 0.1). Results: The response rate for the survey was 71% (531/747). Forty percent (205/514) of physicians disagreed, 31.5% (162/514) were neutral, and 28.5% (147/514) agreed that the specialty of palliative care should be renamed supportive care. Further, 57.1% (301/527) agreed that patients have a negative perception of the term palliative care; 41.6% (220/528) agreed that patients would feel more comfortable with early referral if palliative care were renamed supportive care; and 37.5% (198/528) agreed that this would be the case for referring physicians. Physicians who agreed that palliative care should be renamed were more likely be older (p < 0.01), female (p < 0.01), to practice palliative care as a smaller proportion of their clinical time (p < 0.0001) and to agree that patients have a negative perception of the term palliative care (p < 0.0001). Conclusions: A substantial minority of practicing Canadian palliative care physicians believe that palliative care should be renamed supportive care. Rebranding and/or renaming of palliative care should be considered to encourage and destigmatize early referral.
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 | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".