Community perspectives on structural barriers to dying well at home in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyze how structural determinants and barriers within social systems shape options for dying well at home in Canada, while also shaping preferences for dying at home. METHODS: To inform a descriptive thematic analysis, 24 Canadian stakeholders were interviewed about their views, experiences, and preferences about dying at home. Participants included compassionate community advocates, palliative care professionals, volunteers, bereaved family caregivers, residents of rural and remote regions, service providers working with structurally vulnerable populations, and members of francophone, immigrant, and 2SLGBTQ+ communities. RESULTS: Analysis of stakeholders' insights and experiences led to the conceptualization of several structural barriers to dying well at home: inaccessible public and community infrastructure and services, a structural gap in death literacy, social stigma and discrimination, and limited access to relational social capital. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Aging in Canada, as elsewhere across the globe, has increased demand for palliative care and support, especially in the home. Support for people wishing to die at home is a key public health issue. However, while Canadian policy documents normalize dying in place as ideal, it is uncertain whether these fit with the real possibilities for people nearing the end of life. Our analysis extends existing research on health equity in palliative and end-of-life care beyond a focus on service provision. Results of this analysis identify the need to expand policymakers' structural imaginations about what it means to die well at home in Canada.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".