Survey evaluations of University of British Columbia residents’ education and attitudes regarding palliative care and physician assisted death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Little prior research has been conducted regarding resident physicians’ opinions on the subject of Physician Assisted Death (PAD), despite past surveys ascertaining the attitudes of practicing physicians towards PAD in Canada. We solicited British Columbia residents’ opinions on the amount of education they receive about palliative care and physician assisted death, and their attitudes towards the implementation of PAD.Methods: We conducted a cross sectional, anonymous online survey with the resident physicians of British Columbia, Canada. Questions included: close-ended questions, graded Likert scale questions, and comments. Results: Among the respondents (n=299, response rate 24%), 44% received ≥5 hours of education in palliative care, 40% received between zero and four hours of education, and 16% reported zero hours. Of all respondents, 75% had received no education about PAD and the majority agreed that there should be more education about palliative care (74%) and PAD (85%). Only 35% of residents felt their program provided them with enough education to make an informed decision about PAD, yet 59% would provide a consenting patient with PAD. Half of the respondents believed PAD would ultimately be provided by palliative care physicians.Interpretation: Residents desire further education about palliative care and PAD. Training programs should consider conducting a thorough needs assessment and implementing structured education to meet this need.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".