Factors Associated With Knowledge and Comfort Providing Palliative Care: A Survey of Pediatricians in Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND:: Lack of education and training in palliative care has been described to be one of the most important barriers to pediatric palliative care implementation. OBJECTIVE:: To examine what factors determine the degree of knowledge and level of comfort Mexican pediatricians have providing pediatric palliative care. METHODS:: A questionnaire that assessed palliative care concepts was developed and applied online to Mexican pediatricians, both generalists and specialists. RESULTS:: A total of 242 pediatricians responded. The majority had not received palliative care education (92.6%) and felt uncomfortable discussing palliative needs with patients and families (92.1%). The mean score of the questionnaire was 6.8 (±1.4) of 10 correct answers. Knowledge in palliative care was associated with exposure to oncologic patients ( P = .01) and previous palliative care education ( P = .02) but inversely related to the pediatrician's age ( P = .01). Comfort addressing patient's palliative care needs was associated with knowledge in palliative care ( P < .01), exposure to oncologic patients ( P = .03), and previous education in palliative care ( P = .02). CONCLUSIONS:: Although Mexican pediatricians have basic knowledge of palliative care concepts, they do not feel comfortable addressing palliative care needs, suggesting that the main barrier for implementing palliative care is not the lack of knowledge but rather feeling uncomfortable when addressing these issues with patients and families. Educational programs should incorporate strategies that could help physicians develop comfort in approaching palliative care patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".