Equity-Focused Palliative and End-of-Life Care in a System Not Designed for it: Qualitative Insights from Service Providers and Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
‘Equity-focused care’ has gained attention in recent years. With widespread use, concepts take on different meanings creating confusion for service providers. This study examines what people experiencing homelessness with life-limiting illnesses value in equity-focused care, and how service providers—who identify their work as equity-focused—describe their roles within a care system that relies on, yet often undervalues, this kind of work. We conducted 11 interviews with service providers and seven with people experiencing homelessness with a life-limiting illness and who received care from a community-based palliative care team in Western Canada. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed via thematic analysis. We constructed three themes: Adapting to Individual Needs; Service Provider Orientation to Practice ; and Being Present with People . Themes aligned with two spheres of influence from the Education Training Research’s Health Equity Framework: Relationships and Networks and Systems of Power . Findings highlighted that service providers deliver equity-focused care by developing strong relational care networks challenging existing power structures –making this model incongruent with existing individually-focused biomedical care models. Findings transform the theoretical concept, ‘equity-focused care’, into tangible knowledge that highlights areas for policy change to support equity-focused care.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".