‘The beauty and the less beautiful’: exploring the meanings of dying at ‘home’ among community and practitioner representatives and advocates across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Significant structural and normative pressures privilege the ideal of dying at home in Canada. At the same time, the social complexities and meanings associated with dying in particular locations remain critically unexamined. Objective: The aim of this study is to explore how diverse community members, including health and social care stakeholders, talk about preferences for locations of dying, with a particular focus on meanings of dying at home. Design: Semi-structured virtual interviews were conducted with 24 community and practitioner representatives and advocates across Canada during the Covid-19 pandemic. This included compassionate community advocates, palliative care professionals and volunteers, bereaved carers, and members of queer, rural, and immigrant communities. Participants were asked about their own preferences for location of dying and elaborated on these aspects with regard to their client population or community group. Results: Our analysis illuminates how meanings of dying at home are connected to previous experiences and perceptions of institutional care. As such, participants' perspectives are often framed as a rejection of institutional care. Dying at home also often signals potential for preserving ontological security and relational connection in the face of life-threatening illness. However, participants' expertise simultaneously informs a sense that dying at home is often unattainable. At times, this awareness underpins interpretations of both preferences and choices as contingent on considerations of the nature and type of illness, concerns about impacts on families, and available resources. Conclusion: The ideal of dying at home is nuanced by identity, relational, and structural contexts. Knowledge from this study can inform realistic and practical person-centered planning across care settings. It can also help create more representative public policy and health system quality indicators regarding a 'good death' that do not rely on or perpetuate undeveloped and unrealistic assumptions about dying, home, and family 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 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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".