Engaging in Palliative Care Conversations With Healthcare Providers: A Phenomenological Young Adult Cancer Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What is it like for young adults living with metastatic/advanced cancers to engage in conversations about palliative care with healthcare providers? Often, young people are not introduced to palliative care. Instead, healthcare providers may assume that they are already well-supported, that their symptoms are aptly managed, or that introducing palliative care will somehow spoil any remaining hope they live with. While some of the benefits of palliative care have been explored in the literature, the experiences of young people living with metastatic/advanced cancers as they are introduced to these conversations have largely been ignored. Drawing on interviews with young adults, the aim of this study was to gain insights into these experiences. From their reflections, we may understand these conversations as an experience of an opening for talk, conversations as an experience of need and relief, and conversations as an experience of reflection. Having a discussion about palliative care may serve as a conversational opening not only to discuss additional support, but also to explore that which is meaningful for them as they live with serious illnesses. We may appreciate at the heart of these conversations are physical, relational, and existential needs that may be relieved by palliation. Significantly, these conversations afford personal reflections and frank discussions of dying and death. In this way, a phenomenological understanding of palliative care conversations provides healthcare providers with reflective insights and practical considerations for approaching these important conversations with young people, recognizing that the conversations themselves may be deeply personal and decidedly individual.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".