Coordinating children’s palliative care in municipalities: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Children with palliative care conditions and their families have complex care needs. In Norwegian municipalities, designated coordinators facilitate cooperation between health and social care services to ensure a holistic approach to meeting these needs. However, information is limited concerning how coordinators perform their duties and the factors influencing their work performance. AIM: To explore coordinators' experiences and perceptions of factors influencing their work performance in relation to children's palliative care (CPC) in municipalities. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 coordinators for children in palliative care and analysed using a reflexive thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Both internal and external factors influenced the coordinator's work performance, and they experienced a range of barriers in their efforts to achieve holistic care. Four themes were generated: 'random knowledge on children's palliative care', 'the abstract concept of coordination', 'striving to unite the fragmented whole' and 'aiming for tailored coordination'. A lack of training and experience in CPC is widespread among the coordinators. Additionally, the municipal systems seem inadequately developed to address the needs of children in palliative care and their families. CONCLUSION: Strengthening coordination in municipalities for children in palliative care and their families requires that coordinators receive systematic training in CPC and further development of their support systems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".