Understanding of palliative care among members of the public.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
71 Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) defines palliative care (PC) as an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing life-threatening illness. However, the public may be unaware of this definition. We assessed the Canadian public’s knowledge and attitudes toward PC before and after being provided the WHO definition. Methods: We engaged a health research firm to distribute a cross-sectional survey to members of the Canadian public. Eligible participants were >18 years of age, could comprehend English or French, and were currently residing in Canada. We assessed participants’ knowledge of and attitudes towards PC before and after reading the WHO definition of PC. Results were analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test. Results: Of 1518 participants (52% female), 45% (676/1518) stated they knew what PC was and could explain it, 32% (488/1518) knew about PC but could not explain it, 13% (198/1518) had heard of PC but did not know what it was, and 10% (156/1518) had never heard of PC. Of those who had heard of PC, 58% (784/1362) agreed PC is the last resort when other treatments have failed, 64% (877/1362) agreed PC means being close to death, and 67% (914/1362) believed PC meant being at “the stage that you can no longer take care of yourself”. Before reading the WHO definition, 56% (774/1362) agreed/strongly agreed that referral to PC would make them feel afraid; after reading the definition, this percentage was reduced to 41%, and degree of fearfulness was reduced in 46% (p<0.0001). Fifty-nine percent (898/1518) stated they did not know, prior to reading the WHO definition, that PC could be involved early in the course of illness, and 45% did not know PC could be provided together with other treatments aimed at prolonging life. Eighty-nine percent (1344/1518) felt the PC definition helped them to better understand what PC is, and 91% believed that Canadians should be made aware PC can be included early in the course of a patient’s illness. Conclusions: More than half of respondents had limited knowledge of PC and believed it was synonymous with end-of-life care. Provision of the WHO definition improved understanding and allayed fears of PC. Public educational initiatives may improve understanding and increase acceptance of PC.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".