An international study of healthcare professionals’ understandings of palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The development of palliative care across the World is varied and often limited. The purpose of this comparative study was to explore healthcare professionals’ (doctors, nurses, and healthcare workers) understanding of palliative care in several different countries. Patients and methods: Eight focus groups were held in eight different countries using open-ended semi-structured questions that allowed participants to report on their understanding and experience of palliative care, the referral to services and the difficulties in providing and accessing palliative care. Transcriptions were subjected to thematic analysis. Results: Sixty people in total participated in focus groups held across eight countries. The main themes derived from the data included: definitions of palliative care; place of death and last care; and barriers to providing palliative care. Knowledge and understanding of palliative care vary across countries and between professionals and family carers. Cultural attitudes around death and dying in some countries appear to impact the introduction, availability, and use of palliative care services. The place of death of people with palliative care needs may also be influenced by resources and cultural norms. Limitations: The participants were self–selected and may not be representative of the wider views within each country. Conclusions: Increased educational interventions about palliative care for both professionals and the public would help improve palliative care provision, taking into account the social and cultural norms within communities.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | low |
| grok | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| opus | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 3 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".