End-of-life doulas: international reflections on a transnational movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review article summarizes the findings from the first virtual International End-of-Life Doula Symposium, held over 3 days on 25-27 April 2022. More than 40 people attended from seven countries, predominantly from Australia, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom, and they were primarily experienced practitioners. In this article, we focus on participants' topics of conversations and experiences that were relevant across international boundaries, organized through the symposium themes of developments, disruptions, dilemmas and directions. All authors took de-identified handwritten notes across the 3 days of discussion, as well as reflexive notes about our own thoughts and perspectives on the topics discussed. We then collated our notes and abductively focussed our analysis on topics that generated significant conversation and/or came up repeatedly within the overall symposium themes, as well as trying to capture any unexpected issues and perspectives. We identify and summarize a wide range of interests and concerns within the development of the end-of-life doula (EOLD) role. We provide a model for integration pathways within existing health care systems, as well as an innovative conceptual framework synthesizing key intersecting developmental issues that are relevant across regional and national boundaries. The symposium was the first opportunity for EOLDs to collectively discuss their work and interests within an international context. Our findings indicate that there are fundamentally similar developmental issues across countries, along with some variations. As the first international event of its kind, our 'state of the field' summary review of the symposium holds significant insights relevant to both national and international contexts, and to a diversity of stakeholders interested in the development of this new care role and emerging transnational movement.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".