Improving Knowledge of Palliative Care in Rural South Dakota Through Community Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the effectiveness of education on increasing knowledge of palliative care and how to access palliative care services among community members. Design: A descriptive study using a retrospective survey was conducted after in-person educational events on palliative care. This study used the definition of rural and frontier provided by the South Dakota Department of Health which is based on the US Census Bureau population estimates (2020). Sample: Educational events occurred in 17 communities across South Dakota with 256 community members. Of which, 166 people completed the survey. Methods: Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to evaluate for change in palliative care knowledge. Fisher’s Exact Test was utilized to analyze for an association between past palliative and hospice care use, palliative care knowledge, and confidence in finding palliative care services. Findings: The majority of educational events took place in rural or frontier locations with 85% of participants and 95.2% of survey respondents attending in a rural or frontier location. Most of the survey respondents (61.5%) were a caregiver of someone with a serious health condition, while 13.3% had a serious health condition and 3% were both a caregiver and had a serious health condition. After completion of the community education program, community members demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in their knowledge of palliative care and their confidence in being able to locate palliative care services, p <.001. Having used palliative care services was significantly associated with palliative care knowledge and confidence in accessing these services, p < .001. Conclusion: Performing education individualized to each community increased knowledge regarding palliative care and how to access these services. Additional needs of community members were discovered which is critically important to address as the rural population ages and is more likely to be living with serious illness(es). Keywords: palliative care, community education, rural DOI: https://doi.org/10.14574/ojrnhc.v23i2.750
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".