Bibliographic record
Abstract
The provision of palliative care has been seen to have a significant impact on the interprofessional health care team. Being emotionally present to support patients and families at their most stressful points in life can result in compassion satisfaction or compassion fatigue. Providing palliative care through the COVID-19 pandemic added another layer of complexity to this professional caregiving experience. Although efforts have been made by employers to support health care providers in the practices of self-care and mindfulness, the true experience of care providers was not known. This study was conducted from June 2020 to October 2020 to better understand the experiences of physicians, nurses, social workers, and spiritual care providers who were providing palliative care during the first wave of the pandemic. Twenty-five participants completed the Professional Quality of Life (The Concise ProQOL Manual: The Concise Manual for the Professional Quality of Life Scale) measure and open-ended questions to evaluate their experiences as health care providers. The findings resulted in an overarching theme of "Weathering the Storm" with 6 themes describing the experiences of the interprofessional team.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".