MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322760449 · doi:10.29390/cjrt-2022-001

Effect of end-of-life care education on perceived self-efficacy of the pediatric respiratory therapist

2023· article· en· W4322760449 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Denise Lynn Lauderbaugh, Toni Popien, Ami Doshi

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Respiratory Therapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGriefPerceptionCoping (psychology)MedicinePsychologyEnd-of-life careNursingPalliative careClinical psychologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: End-of-life care (EoLC) is difficult for respiratory therapists (RTs), causing struggles with providing EoLC and grief during and after the death. Objective: The objective of the study was to determine if EoLC education can increase RTs' perception of knowledge of EoLC, respiratory therapy as a valuable EoLC service, comfort providing EoLC, and knowledge of ways to deal with grief. Methods: One hundred and thirty pediatric RTs completed a 1 h EoLC education session. Afterwards, a single-centre descriptive survey was administered to the 60 volunteers out of the 130 attendees. To determine RTs' self-rated change in knowledge of EoLC, perception of respiratory therapy as a valuable EoLC service, comfort with EoLC, and knowledge of ways to cope with grief. Statistical analysis included percent change. Results: Overall, 96% of surveyed RTs agree they had an increase in knowledge, perception of RT services, comfort with providing care, and coping. Only 4% felt that this course had little benefit overall but still perceived value in RT EoLC and increased knowledge of long- and short-term ways to deal with grief. Conclusion: Education on EoLC practices increased pediatric RTs' perception of knowledge, perceived value of respiratory therapy in EoLC, comfort with EoLC, and knowledge of coping resources.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Respiratory TherapySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207