MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404194385 · doi:10.1177/26323524241293820

Using relational ethics to approach equity in palliative care

2024· article· en· W4404194385 on OpenAlexafffund
Kristina Smith, Kelli Stajduhar

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative Care and Social Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsEquity (law)Palliative carePsychologySociologyBusinessNursingPolitical scienceMedicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence suggests that people experiencing inequities and who are highly marginalized (e.g., people impacted by racism, sexism, discrimination, stigma, mental illness, substance use issues, disability, and the effects of homelessness; also referred to as structurally vulnerable individuals) often die alone, in pain, and not receiving the care they need. Some research even points to highly marginalized people not feeling worthy of care. The need to consider equity in the context of palliative care has recently emerged but little attention has been paid to how ethical decision-making generally, and relational ethics, specifically, could provide guidance in the care of highly marginalized people who are on a palliative trajectory. Relational ethics offers a model of care and decision-making framework that emphasizes how clients, healthcare providers, and larger social structures are interwoven and acknowledge that structural conditions can position people to have less choice than others. Relational approaches in the context of palliative care for highly marginalized people have the potential to provide a lens to better support the delivery of equitable palliative care. This critical essay explores relational ethics as a way to approach equity in palliative care to support clients facing structural vulnerabilities. We discuss relational ethical considerations to approach collaborative partnerships between clients, healthcare providers, and the larger community with the goal of aligning care with clients' values. An ethical case for how a relational ethics approach might be used to promote equitable access to palliative care will be explored, highlighting how such approaches have the potential to better align client wishes with their needs and to ensure decision-making and care delivery is trauma-informed, harm reduction focused, and culturally respectful. Relational ethics can support social change in equity and palliative care by contributing ethically informed ways of caring for/with/about highly marginalized people.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.030
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0300.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.082
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.531
GPT teacher head0.578
Teacher spread0.047 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative Care and Social PracticeSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207