<i>“Once you open that door, it’s a floodgate</i> ”: Exploring work-related grief among community service workers providing care for structurally vulnerable populations at the end of life through participatory action research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: At the end of life, people experiencing structural vulnerability (e.g. homelessness, poverty, stigmatization) rely on community service workers to fill gaps in access to traditional palliative services. Although high levels of burnout are reported, little is known about these workers’ experiences of grief. Aim: To explore community service workers’ experiences of grief to identify ways of providing more tailored, meaningful, and equitable supports. Design: A community-based participatory action research methodology, informed by equity perspectives, was employed. Setting/participants: In an urban center in western Canada, community service worker (primary) participants ( n = 18) were engaged as members of an action team. A series of 18 action cycles took place, with secondary participants ( n = 48) (e.g. palliative, social care, housing support, etc.) being recruited throughout the research process. Focus groups ( n = 5) and evaluative interviews ( n = 13) with participants were conducted. Structured observational field notes ( n = 34) were collected during all team meetings and community interventions. Interpretive thematic analysis ensued through a collaborative and iterative process. Results: During initial meetings, action team participants described experiences of compounding distress, grief, and multiple loss. Analysis showed workers are: (1) grieving as family, not just providers; (2) experiencing complex layers of compounded grief; and (3) are fearful to open the “floodgates” to grief. Conclusions: Findings contribute to our understanding on the inequitable distribution of grief across society. A collective and material response is needed, including witnessing, acknowledging and valuing the grief process; facilitating community wellness, collective grieving, and advocacy; and providing training and tools in a palliative approach to care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".