MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401632636 · doi:10.1212/cpj.0000000000200322

Neurologists' Attitudes and Perceptions on Palliative Care

2024· article· en· W4401632636 on OpenAlex
Miranda Wan, Nora Cristall, Lara Cooke

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology Clinical Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative carePerceptionPsychologyMedicineNursingNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives: Despite significant advances in the treatment of neurologic disorders, many conditions require complex care planning and advanced care planning. Neurologists are in a unique position because they are integral in providing patient centered care, understanding neurologic disease and illness trajectory, and how disease can affect patients' sense of self and values. Currently, little is known about neurologists' perceptions and challenges in care planning and palliative care for their patients. Methods: Neurologists from one Canadian academic institution participated in a 30-minute semistructured interview from November 2022 to April 2023. Interviews were conducted until saturation was reached and confirmed. Interviews occurred online through a secure platform or in-person and were recorded. Data were analyzed using a constant comparative method using constructivist grounded theory. Member checking was conducted post interview. Results: Ten neurologists participated across a broad spectrum of neurology experience and subspecialties. We developed a detailed theory of understanding neurologists' attitudes and perceptions of palliative care. When neurologists delay or fail to initiate care planning discussions or palliative care, it results from a complex interplay between patient, physician, and resource accessibility factors. Certain contextual factors, such as a first visit or follow-up, inpatient vs outpatient setting, clinic culture, and the type of clinic practice, are factors that can influence these conversations. As a result, physicians may fail to use available resources, or they may involve other care providers or refer to subspecialty neurologic clinics. However, this delay can still lead to patient and provider harm. Opportunities to improve care exist with continuing education opportunities for trainees and staff, collaboration with palliative care specialists, and health systems support, such as increasing public awareness to address misconceptions about palliative care and resource availability. Discussion: Our findings identify that failure or delay to initiate care planning and palliative care by neurologists results from a complex interplay between local culture, experience, context, practice type, and patient factors. Opportunities to improve care include increasing educational opportunities, building integrated and collaborative practices, and dedicated health systems support.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.241
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it