MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000419978

Examining Tension in the Provision of Palliative Care: Social Workers’ Experiences

2022· dissertation· en· W7000419978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2022
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Work Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careQualitative researchSocial workExistentialismFace (sociological concept)Focus groupWork (physics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This dissertation was a qualitative study that explored workplace tension experienced by social workers employed in palliative care settings in Ontario, Canada. Although work in palliative care can be a rewarding, it can also be challenging for a myriad of reasons, including the emotional labour of the work and organizational factors. While many of these challenges are common among most providers, social workers face unique difficulties. Social workers employed in palliative care settings are exposed to existential dilemmas, psychological quandaries, emotional distress, and confront institutional and professional challenges associated with working within the medical model and neoliberal ideologies that dominate many of these institutions. Although tension frequently appears in the palliative care literature, it has multiple and varying uses and defies a definition that fits every professional and every situation. Few research studies have attempted to understand workplace tension with a specific focus on how structural and relational forces conjoin and contribute to it, and even fewer sample social workers specifically. The purpose of this study was to gain a deep and rich understanding of workplace tension and identify its origins and the factors that perpetuate and sustain it. Using an interlocking theoretical perspective, the works of Foucault and Goffman were intertwined and juxtaposed to gain an understanding of the source of workplace tension in both the formation and structure of discourse and how it is expressed and experienced in face-to-face interactions. The following research questions were used to guide this study: 1) How do social workers employed in palliative care settings define and describe the term tension? 2) What are the individual, relational, and organizational sources of workplace tension? and 3) How do social workers in palliative care settings manage everyday workplace tension? The experiences of 13 social workers employed in palliative care settings are presented. The work was methodologically grounded in the theoretical paradigm of interpretive description and is informed by Foucault’s writings on power and discourse and Goffman’s theory of presentation-of-self. Data was collected using unstructured interviews. Participants understanding of tension was explored, and four overarching themes pertaining to sources of workplace tension emerged: (a) social workers’ perception of their own reality in palliative care settings; (b) social workers’ reflections of how others see them; (c) tension between these two perceptions of reality; and (d) managing and balancing tension. Participants described concerns regarding the minimization and misunderstanding of social work knowledge and training. Concerns were exacerbated by organizational hierarchies and the devaluing and disempowering of social workers in workplace settings. Participants also discussed role strain and role conflict that resulted from fulfilling several roles. Participants endeavoured to maintain a favourable impression with their colleagues, clients, and organization administration by practices such as using euphemisms, disarming techniques, role distancing techniques. The findings from this study highlight elements of power and social control and ways in which social contexts produce social practices and daily interactions. Study implications include the need to question, dismantle, and challenge the dominance of the medical model and reposition social workers employed in palliative care settings in order to reduce workplace tension.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.028
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0030.016
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)Same topicSocial Work Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207