They do their utmost: promise and limits of palliative care in two refugee camps in Rwanda, a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After often gruelling journeys, some refugees arrive at secure locations with severe injury or illness. Others find themselves shortly thereafter facing a life-limiting health condition. Palliative care has been the focus of recent research, and of academic and aid sector dialogue. In this study, we ask: What are experiences and needs of patients and care providers? What opportunities and obstacles exist to enhance or introduce means of reducing suffering for patients facing serious illness and injury in crisis settings? We present findings of a qualitative sub-study within a larger programme of research exploring moral and practical dimensions of palliative care in humanitarian crisis contexts. This paper presents vignettes about palliative care from refugees and care providers in two refugee camps in Rwanda, and is among the first to provide empirical evidence on first-hand experiences of individuals who have fled protracted conflict and face dying far from home. Along with narratives of their experiences, participants provided a range of recommendations from small (micro) interventions that are low cost, but high impact, through to larger (macro) changes at the systems and societal levels of benefit to policy developers and decision-makers.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".