From Cultural Safety to Anti-Racism: Reflections on Addressing Inequities in Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of palliative care is to ease the suffering of individuals with a serious and often life-limiting illness throughout the course of their disease by providing holistic care that considers the physical, spiritual, and psychosocial dimensions of health and well-being. Research shows that a palliative approach to care is cost-effective for the healthcare system and results in improved quality of life for patients and their loved ones. However, it is well-documented in the literature that structurally vulnerable populations have greater difficulty accessing equitable and culturally safe palliative care. Several domains are identified as contributing factors to the disparities seen in the literature, including systemic racism, cultural differences around death and suffering, and language barriers. Although Canada has had a national palliative care framework since 2018, ongoing issues of access and equity continue to disproportionately impact certain groups, including racially marginalized, immigrant, and low-income communities. In this commentary, successes and ongoing gaps in providing culturally safe and anti-racist palliative care are explored. In these proposed interventions, we advocate for a palliative approach to care that is grounded in equity, justice, and human rights.
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 | 0.041 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.076 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.051 |
| 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".