Nonphysical Suffering: An Under-Resourced and Key Role for Hospice and Palliative Care Social Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article highlights recent research findings that have significance for hospice and palliative care social work in Canada, and for the field of hospice and palliative care more broadly. A 2020 discourse analysis study examined the experiences of 24 interdisciplinary palliative care clinicians across Canada in their work with patients' nonphysical suffering. Nonphysical suffering is suffering that may be emotional, psychological, social, spiritual and/or existential in nature. The study found an absence of specialist social workers on hospice and palliative care teams or limited time for specialist social workers to address patients' nonphysical suffering due to high caseloads and complex practical needs. While the study recognizes social workers have expertise in supporting patients' nonphysical suffering, a competency and skill that has not been sufficiently captured in the existing literature, the systemic barriers they face in providing care may leave patients' needs unmet. The study also highlights the unique pressure social workers may feel to relieve patients' nonphysical suffering due to the psychosocial focus of their role. The need for specialist social workers to be included and adequately resourced on hospice and palliative care teams across diverse settings in Canada is evident.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".