How family physicians introduce palliative care to patients with chronic illnesses
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Increasing numbers of Canadians living with complex, life-limiting conditions demand high-quality palliative care. Timely access to palliative care can help to reduce stress, improve quality of life, and provide relief for patients and their families. The purpose of this study is to explore the experiences of family physicians (FPs) regarding the decision and process of introducing palliative care to patients with chronic diseases. METHODS: Interpretive description methodology was used to guide the investigation of the research question. Thirteen Calgary Zone FPs participated in individual interviews. Data was collected iteratively and analyzed using constant comparative analysis. RESULTS: Analysis of interviews identified the overarching themes of dignity and empowerment, which describe the experience of FPs introducing palliative care to chronically ill patients. Four subthemes were woven throughout, including the art of conversation, therapeutic relationships, timing, and preparation of the patient and family. DISCUSSION: While the benefits of palliative conversations are widely accepted, a deeper understanding of how FPs can be supported in developing this aspect of their practice is needed. Understanding their experience provides knowledge that can serve as a framework for future education, mentorship, and competency development.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it