A Retrospective Thematic Analysis of Patient, Family, and Staff Creative Art Tiles Developed on a Tertiary Palliative Care Unit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Clinical use of the creative arts in palliative care is well established, yet there are few evaluation studies of these programs. METHODS: In this first phase of a 3-phase evaluation of a creative arts program entitled "Tile Tales," we conducted a retrospective thematic analysis of 85 painted tiles and accompanying stories that were publically displayed on a tertiary palliative care unit. Each story was independently coded, using content analysis. Themes were derived through consensus, using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Tiles were created by staff (n = 36, 42%), family (n = 32, 38%), patients (n = 9, 11%), or patients and family (n = 8, 9%). Six major themes emerged from the artwork: "Spirituality," "Relationships," "Journey," "Story," "Symbolism," and "Paradox." SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: These results illustrate how the creative arts can support the expression of diverse palliative care experiences, for patients, their families and palliative care staff, when words alone may not suffice.
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 | 0.022 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".