“There is no dignity in this”: Understanding the experience of families facing death of a loved one during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic changed every aspect of how families managed the experience of dying loved ones. This Canadian study enrolled 24 immediate family members of patients who died of any cause during the COVID-19 global pandemic. Participants were interviewed, exploring their experiences from before hospitalization to death and bereavement including dignity related concerns. A qualitative study design rooted in constructivist grounded theory methodology resulted in a unique grounded theory framework. Three critical stages related to experiences of death and dying were identified: navigating community support and healthcare services, end-of-life care and experiences, and living with down-stream effects of dealing with death. Four cross-cutting core themes emerged, including impacts of public health restrictions, overwhelmed healthcare system, emotional burden on family members, and navigating family relationships. In anticipation of future global health crises or circumstances that preclude family presence, our study informs strategies to support and care for those whose loved ones are going to die.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".