Into the Abyss: A Review of the Literature Related to the Spiritual Care of Family Caregivers In Community Hospice and Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
he recent rise in interest and occurrence of death at home has been welcomed by society and by the health care system for varying reasons. This has implications for pastors and congregations. Individuals have appreciated the opportunity to receive end-of-life care in the familiar and comfortable environment of their own homes rather than in an institutional setting. In a longitudinal study published in the Journal of Palliative Care, the authors found that “patients at home tended to be more satisfied with care than those in hospital or long-term care settings “(Heyland et al., 2009, p. 255). At the same time the government’s cost-saving agenda has precipitated restructuring measures by the health care system that aim to reduce more expensive forms of health care such as hospitalization for non-acute forms of medical care. Family caregivers are the cornerstone of this movement from institutional care to home care. Community care cannot occur without their partnership. Caring for a family member with a life-limiting illness is an endeavour that requires physical, emotional and spiritual stamina and for which many are unprepared. At what cost are family caregivers supporting their loved ones in end of life care at home? What are the supports available to
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".