A qualitative exploration of allied health providers’ perspectives on cultural humility in palliative and end-of-life care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cultural factors, including religious or cultural beliefs, shape patients' death and dying experiences, including palliative and end-of-life (EOL) care preferences. Allied health providers must understand their patients' cultural preferences to support them in palliative and EOL care effectively. Cultural humility is a practice which requires allied health providers to evaluate their own values, biases, and assumptions and be open to learning from others, which may enhance cross-cultural interactions by allowing providers to understand patients' perceptions of and preferences for their health, illness, and dying. However, there is limited knowledge of how allied health providers apply cultural humility in palliative and EOL care within a Canadian context. Thus, this study describes Canadian allied health providers' perspectives of cultural humility practice in palliative and EOL care settings, including how they understand the concept and practice of cultural humility, and navigate relationships with patients who are palliative or at EOL and from diverse cultural backgrounds. METHODS: In this qualitative interpretive description study, remote interviews were conducted with allied health providers who currently or recently practiced in a Canadian palliative or EOL care setting. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using interpretive descriptive analysis techniques. RESULTS: Eleven allied health providers from the following disciplines participated: speech-language pathology, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, and dietetics. Three themes were identified: (1) Interpreting and understanding of cultural humility in palliative and EOL care (i.e., recognizing positionality, biases and preconceived notions and learning from patients); (2) Values, conflicts, and ethical uncertainties when practicing cultural humility at EOL between provider and patient and family, and within the team and constraints/biases within the system preventing culturally humble practices; (3) The 'how to' of cultural humility in palliative and EOL care (i.e., ethical decision-making in palliative and EOL care, complexities within the care team, and conflicts and challenges due to contextual/system-level factors). CONCLUSIONS: Allied health providers used various strategies to manage relationships with patients and practice cultural humility, including intra- and inter-personal strategies, and contextual/health systems enablers. Conflicts and challenges they encountered related to cultural humility practices may be addressed through relational or health system strategies, including professional development and decision-making support.
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 | 0.020 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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, 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".