Long journeys: Healthcare providers’ perspectives about promoting equity and community-based palliative care for rural, remote, and indigenous communities in northern British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inequitable access to palliative care in Canada is a pressing issue. People with life-limiting illnesses in rural and remote northern and Indigenous geographies in British Columbia (BC) face ethically problematic barriers to receiving palliative care. Palliative approaches that are equity-oriented and community-based bring significant improvements to the healthcare system and to people's quality of life. The purpose of this qualitative study was to find ways to promote health equity and community-based palliative care. This research is informed by action-oriented, anti-colonial, and critical Indigenous methodologies. As perspectives of frontline healthcare workers offer transformative insights, palliative care providers working in northern BC were interviewed, and, from their interviews, three main themes emerged. These were (1) Support Primary Palliative Care, (2) earlier and inclusive Integration of Palliative care, and (3) Culturally Safe Palliative Care. The implications of these findings are situated at the intersection of cultural safety, public health, and health promotion.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.036 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| 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".