The first casualty of COVID-19 for patients nearing death was human dignity: Understanding the experience of palliative care patients during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way people lived, but also the way they died. It accentuated the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual vulnerabilities of patients approaching death. This study explored the lived experience of palliative inpatients during the pandemic. We conducted interviews with 22 palliative inpatients registered in a Canadian urban palliative care program, aimed to uncover how the pandemic impacted participants' experiences of approaching end-of-life. The reflexive thematic analysis revealed 6 themes: putting off going into hospital, the influence of the pandemic on hospital experience, maintaining dignity in care, emotional impact of nearing death, making sense of end-of-life circumstances and coping with end-of-life. Findings highlight the vulnerability of patients approaching death, and how that was accentuated during the pandemic. Findings reveal how the pandemic strained, threatened, and undermined human connectedness. These lived experiences of palliative inpatients offer guidance for future pandemic planning and strategies for providing optimal palliative care.
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 | 0.006 | 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 | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| 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".