Profiles of palliative day care programs in Canada and the United Kingdom: A meta-synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The first palliative day care program (PDCP) marks its 50th anniversary. Aim: This study examined the distinctive features of PDCPs that have endured, as well as the changes they have undergone in the United Kingdom and Canada, to identify avenues for the development of these programs. Methods: Using primary data from two qualitative studies, conducted in the United Kingdom and Canada, a thematic meta-synthesis was carried out using the expansive secondary analysis approach to identify similarities and distinctions between the PDCPs identified in the two original studies. Results: The results were drawn from group and individual interviews with 19 participants in Canada, including 13 professionals and 6 managers across 6 PDCPs, and 35 participants in the United Kingdom, including 16 professionals and 18 managers from 3 PDCPs. The results indicate that the administrative structure of the PDCPs, the adoption of a palliative care philosophy, and the multidisciplinary nature of the professional and volunteer teams are the components of the programs that have endured. However, patient characteristics, care models, and institutionalization are constantly evolving. Conclusions: As PDCPs continuously innovate to adapt to the needs of their patients, the evolution of their components is desirable. However, pressure to demonstrate the relevance of their services to justify financial resources could, while ensuring their sustainability, deprive them of the values and practices that are their most valuable asset and purpose: supporting people living with advanced diseases with palliative care while still remaining in their own homes.
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 | 0.048 | 0.160 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.043 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".