“We decide according to the protocol”: Humanitarian Healthcare Workers’ Moral Experiences of Palliative Care-Related Decision-Making in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: 919,000 Rohingya refugees live in overcrowded camps in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh after fleeing violence in Myanmar. The Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Goyalmara Hospital offers the highest level of pediatric and neonatal care serving the Rohingya refugees and palliative care is gradually being integrated due to high mortality and medical complexity of patients. The purpose of this study was to understand the moral experiences of staff involved in providing palliative care to inform program implementation at Goyalmara Hospital and in other humanitarian contexts. Method: This focused ethnography was conducted between March-August 2021 at Goyalmara Hospital. Data collection involved participant-observation, individual interviews (22), focus group discussions (5), and analysis of protocols and other documents. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded, translated, and transcribed. A coding scheme was developed, and data coded using NVivo 11. Results: A key finding of this study was the important yet contested role of clinical guidelines and policies in palliative care related decision-making which was shaped by the authority and impermanent presence of international staff in the project. Staff saw clinical guidelines as a valuable resource that supported a consistent approach to care over time, and some locally hired staff used clinical guidelines as a tool to support their point of view during care planning discussions with international staff. Others felt that palliative care guidelines and other policies were inappropriately or rigidly applied, particularly surrounding decisions to refer (or not refer) patients to a higher level of care, or to discontinue certain medical treatments at end of life. Conclusion: MSF staff experienced tension between the need for clarity and consistency, and the need to tailor guidelines to the context, patient, and family. Open discussion of staff concerns may alleviate moral distress and alert teams to areas where advocacy, staff psycho-social support, training, or clinical mentoring are needed.
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 | 0.076 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".