Primary Care Providers’ Perceptions of the CAPACITI Palliative Care Education Trial: A Qualitative Study of Experiences With Self-Directed and Facilitated Modalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectiveCAPACITI (Community Access to PAlliative Care via Interprofessional Teams Improvement) is a virtual training program that teaches primary care providers how to incorporate an early palliative approach to care in practice. Building this capacity can help primary care providers better meet the needs of their seriously ill patients; however, there has been limited in-depth study as to the added benefits of active facilitation in on-line education. We completed a qualitative inquiry with CAPACITI participants to explore perceived differences in self-directed and facilitated e-learning to understand how these modalities contribute to change in practice.MethodsWe completed a qualitative analysis of semi-structured focus groups with primary care teams that participated in CAPACITI. This study was part of a cluster randomized controlled trial where teams were randomized to self-directed or facilitated modalities for each of the three CAPACITI modules. We followed a qualitative descriptive design, using a constant comparative approach to determine emergent themes to understand participant experience and preference in learning modality.ResultsWe conducted 63 focus groups throughout the trial, representing 42 unique teams, about a quarter of which had experienced both learning modalities at the time of the focus group. Qualitative analysis revealed three main themes: changes in thinking (ie identifying patients early in the illness trajectory), change in behavior (ie increased collaboration), and preference in learning modality and perceived benefits. Interestingly, we found no overwhelming preference in learning modality.ConclusionsSelf-directed and facilitated learning modalities were both perceived as effective in promoting changes in thinking and behavior among primary care providers across diverse care settings. Future studies should further explore the use of tailored facilitation such as simulated patient encounters and innovative coaching strategies to optimally promote behavior change in virtual palliative care education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.038 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".