MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135348556 · doi:10.1186/s12904-021-00768-5

Decision making in the end-of-life care of patients who are terminally ill with cancer – a qualitative descriptive study with a phenomenological approach from the experience of healthcare workers

2021· article· en· W3135348556 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Palliative Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University BelfastInstituto Nacional de CancerologíaPontificia Universidad JaverianaDepartamento Administrativo de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación (COLCIENCIAS)
KeywordsPalliative careEnd-of-life careAdvance care planningMedicinePsychological interventionNursingQualitative researchHealth careContext (archaeology)Exploratory researchPsychologyFamily medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In Colombia, recent legislation regarding end-of-life decisions includes palliative sedation, advance directives and euthanasia. We analysed which aspects influence health professionals´ decisions regarding end-of-life medical decisions and care for cancer patients. METHODS: Qualitative descriptive-exploratory study based on phenomenology using semi-structured interviews. We interviewed 28 oncologists, palliative care specialists, general practitioners and nurses from three major Colombian institutions, all involved in end-of-life care of cancer patients: Hospital Universitario San Ignacio and Instituto Nacional de Cancerología in Bogotá and Hospital Universitario San José in Popayan. RESULTS: When making decisions regarding end-of-life care, professionals consider: 1. Patient's clinical condition, cultural and social context, in particular treating indigenous patients requires special skills. 2. Professional skills and expertise: training in palliative care and experience in discussing end-of-life options and fear of legal consequences. Physicians indicate that many patients deny their imminent death which hampers shared decision-making and conversations. They mention frequent ambiguity regarding who initiates conversations regarding end-of-life decisions with patients and who finally takes decisions. Patients rarely initiate such conversations and the professionals normally do not ask patients directly for their preferences. Fear of confrontation with family members and lawsuits leads healthcare workers to carry out interventions such as initiating artificial feeding techniques and cardiopulmonary resuscitation, even in the absence of expected benefits. The opinions regarding the acceptability of palliative sedation, euthanasia and use of medications to accelerate death without the patients´ explicit request vary greatly. 3. Conditions of the insurance system: limitations exist in the offer of oncology and palliative care services for important proportions of the Colombian population. Colombians have access to opioid medications, barriers to their application are largely in delivery by the health system, the requirement of trained personnel for intravenous administration and ambulatory and home care plans which in Colombia are rare. CONCLUSIONS: To improve end-of-life decision making, Colombian healthcare workers and patients need to openly discuss wishes, needs and care options and prepare caregivers. Promotion of palliative care education and development of palliative care centres and home care plans is necessary to facilitate access to end-of-life care. Patients and caregivers' perspectives are needed to complement physicians' perceptions and practices.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.201
GPT teacher head0.446
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it