Perceived Facilitators and Barriers in Implementing Hospice Care: A Qualitative Study Among Health Care Providers in Binzhou, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although many large Chinese cities have begun to implement hospice services, hospice care is still a relatively new concept in many parts of the country, especially in smaller cities. The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of health care providers' (physicians and nurses) perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to hospice care implementation in a fourth-tier city. Using a qualitative descriptive approach, semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with 15 health care providers. Two major categories for developing hospice care were identified: (a) prospective facilitators and (b) perceived barriers. In addition, there is currently much ambiguity regarding what agency should oversee hospice services if implemented, who should be responsible for payment, the importance of developing interdisciplinary care teams and concerns about worker shortages. Future research is encouraged to investigate attitudes towards hospice care across various local healthcare systems and to promote the development of local hospice care 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".