A Pragmatic Review of the General Population’s Attitude, Knowledge and Representations with Regard to Continuous Palliative Sedation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous palliative sedation is an end-of-life practice that consists of inducing a state of unconsciousness in patients who are approaching death to relieve them of severe and refractory symptoms. The Act Respecting End-of-life Care has provided a framework for continuous palliative sedation in the Canadian province of Quebec since 2015. Understanding the general population’s complex attitudes, and knowledge and representations with respect to continuous palliative sedation can contribute to more informed end-of-life care decision-making. Social workers play a crucial role in promoting and implementing enlightened end-of-life choices. The aim of this paper is to explore the general population’s attitude, knowledge and representations with regard to continuous palliative sedation. We used a pragmatic methodology, seeking to explore a real-life knowledge gap while considering resource and time constraints. Two research team members independently selected related studies and extracted their content. We included eight articles involving a total of 18,961 participants. Participants with a positive attitude towards continuous palliative sedation represented 25% to 81% of the study populations. Attitude seems positively affected by the use of euphemisms (i.e. sleep) to describe the intervention. The term “continuous palliative sedation” is unfamiliar to most and is often confused with euthanasia. In the discussion, we offer recommendations for social workers when accompanying patients and families in making end-of-life decisions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".