Unregulated care providers’ engagement in palliative care to older clients and their families in the home setting: a mixed methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Unregulated care providers (UCPs) are at the forefront of direct client care in the community. Their services are required to meet the demand for home-based palliative care from a growing older population, yet understanding of UCPs involvement in care is limited. The study aimed to identify the types and frequencies of tasks performed by UCPs in home-based palliative care to older clients (> 65 years) and their families and to describe UCPs' engagement in care, and barriers and facilitators to their work. METHODS: A mixed method approach was used comprising a quantitative retrospective chart review of UCPs' tasks (n = 66), qualitative content analysis of progress notes from clients' charts (n = 85), and thematic analyses of in-depth interviews with UCPs (n = 10). RESULTS: A thematic structure was derived from analyses and integration of data from the chart review and interviews. The themes reflect the physical, affective, and relational aspects of UCPs involvement in the care of clients and families at the end of life. The findings indicate that although a significant proportion (63%) of the 13, 558 UCP tasks identified were directed toward meeting clients' physical care needs, their presence in the home, made UCPs an important source of information on the client's condition; observing and appraising the situation. Further, the nature of their work and frequent interactions with clients and families also presented opportunities for UCPs to provide emotional support; a role UCPs felt was integral to their work. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlights the challenging nature of palliative care to older clients and their families whose needs are often complicated, situated within the unique environment of home care where supervision of UCPs is at a distance. Challenges and facilitators to UCPs' work in this context are discussed with recommendations to support UCPs in their roles.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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".