Dignity of the patient-–family unit: further understanding in hospice palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore the construct of dignity of the patient-family dyad in hospice palliative care, as well as its influencing factors from the perspective of hospice palliative care staff. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted with 34 staff members from a residential hospice in Amherst, USA, and an inpatient palliative care unit in Winnipeg, Canada, between September 2013 and December 2016. Data were collected through semistructured interviews and were analysed using the thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Findings suggested that staff members viewed dignity as something that is reciprocally supported within the patient-family unit. Themes including respect, comfort, privacy, being informed and quality family time were common in the conceptualisation of dignity in patients and families; themes of being human and being self, autonomy and living with dignity were uniquely used to conceptualise patient dignity. Themes solely constituting family dignity included being included in care, being capable and being treated fairly. Cultural considerations, environmental factors, teamwork and patient/family-staff relationship were the factors identified by staff members that affected dignity in hospice palliative care. CONCLUSION: Findings of this study provide insights into the development of strategies to support the dignity of the patient-family unit in hospice 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 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 | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".