P.049 Neurologists’ attitudes and perceptions on palliative care: a Canadian perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite significant advances in the treatment of neurological disorders, many conditions remain palliative. Neurologists are in a unique position as they are integral in providing patient centered care, understanding neurologic disease and illness trajectory, and how disease can affect patients’ sense of self and values. Currently, little is known about neurologists’ perceptions and challenges in care planning and palliative care for their patients. Methods: A qualitative approach was utilized with semi-structured interviews of ten neurologists. Data was analyzed using a constant comparative method (constructivist grounded theory). Results: Participants represented a broad spectrum of neurologist experience and subspecialties. Four theories were identified: (1) care planning and palliative care are high priorities, (2) neurologic diseases uniquely affect patients and require a dynamic, patient-centered care plan, (3) a care gap exists in providing palliative care for neurologic patients with multifactorial barriers, and (4) opportunities to improve care exist with continuing education, collaboration, and health system support. Conclusions: Neurologists have a key role in care planning and palliative care for patients with chronic neurological diseases. Our findings show that there is a gap in the provision of palliative care. Future directions may include exploring educational opportunities and dedicated health systems to improve care management.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".