The Lived Experiences of Hospice Healthcare Workers Caring for Adolescents and Young Adults With Advanced Cancer: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To understand the lived experience of healthcare workers who provide palliative care to adolescents and young adults living with advanced cancer. Methods: Interpretative phenomenological analysis was the design of this study. Hospice healthcare workers from four pediatric hospices across Canada were recruited through purposive sampling. Semistructured in-person interviews were conducted. Results: Eighteen hospice healthcare workers participated. Two superordinate themes were identified. First, balancing on the tightrope of uncertainty wherein hospice healthcare workers strive to do their best while aiming to take the path of least regret. This theme was underscored by a notion of doing for the adolescents and young adults. Second, acting as a proxy revolves around the importance of fostering relationships with adolescents and young adults through honesty and transparency. The cycle of protection between adolescents and young adults, families, and healthcare providers was emphasized. Conclusions: An action-focused orientation when supporting adolescents and young adults was shared by the healthcare workers. The need to do for adolescents and young adults and the need to protect not only the people they care for but also themselves. More exploration is needed on how healthcare workers who care for adolescents and young adults can be supported while better understanding coping mechanisms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".