From powerlessness to recognition the meaning of palliative care clinicians’ experience of suffering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Palliative care (PC) clinicians work alongside people who are at the end of their lives. These patients face death and suffering, which may also cause significant suffering for the PC clinicians themselves. Previous studies suggest that a significant number of PC professionals suffer from compassion fatigue, vicarious trauma and burnout. However, very few studies have attempted to better understand the meaning of PC clinicians' lived experience of suffering in its complexity and intricacy. Drawing upon Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA), this study aimed to explore the PC clinicians' experience of suffering from a phenomenological and existential perspective. In-depth interviews were conducted with twenty-one specialized PC clinicians who were all part of the same multidisciplinary team. Interviews were analysed using IPA. The three emerging essential themes describing the meaning of clinicians' suffering were 1) Suffering as powerlessness; 2) suffering as non-recognition and 3) easing suffering: the promise of recognition. Result interpretation was based on Paul Ricoeur's existential phenomenology of suffering and recognition. The conclusion calls for support initiatives and interventions aimed at promoting recognition among PC clinicians on personal, professional, and institutional levels.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".