MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7023715402

Patient participation in palliative care decisions: an ethnographic discourse analysis

2014· other· en· W7023715402 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2014
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careContext (archaeology)Qualitative researchProcess (computing)Cognitive reframingSubject (documents)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The participation of patients in making decisions about their care has become paramount given the emphasis on person-centred care. It is deemed especially appropriate in the context of palliative care, where decisions involve a lot of uncertainty and are heavily influenced by personal values. Yet, the literature observing the process of making decisions with patients remains scarce in palliative care. The concept of shared decision-making has been defined in different ways. In this thesis, shared decision-making is conceptualized as the process of constructing patient participation in decision-making through discourse during clinical interactions. The research question guiding this study is: How do patients and health care providers discursively construct patient participation in palliative care decisions in a hospital-based palliative care team? This qualitative study combines discursive psychology with ethnographic methods from organizational ethnography. The field research lasted one year, and the interactions between six family physicians, two pivot nurses, and 18 patients were observed longitudinally. Data generation included observations, and audio-recordings of consultations where decisions were being made.Palliative care providers possess communication skills that can help reverse the documented tendency to delay decision-making conversations about palliative care options, which constitutes a barrier to involving terminally-ill patients in decisions about their care. Data analysis first consisted of identifying the discourses that initiated decision-making exchanges, and the arguments used to justify broaching difficult palliative care decisions. The timing and nature of referral to palliative care influenced whether the only remaining decisions concerned symptom management before an imminent death, and whether patients were still able to participate in decision-making. Participating health care providers introduced decision-making needing immediate attention, such as symptom control, with a straightforward discourse directly addressing and eliciting patients' presenting complaints. When decisions entailed discussing an impending death, initiating the decision-making process required a different discourse. This was accomplished indirectly by palliative care providers by probing the patients' understanding of the disease process, or directly when providing a justification for initiating a difficult discussion, such as expressing concern about the likelihood of complications. While approaching decisions about symptom management was a routine part of palliative care providers' work, patients implicitly retained control over whether they would engage in preparation for their death.The analysis then consisted of looking for the interpretive repertoires constructing patient participation in decision-making; interpretive repertoires are familiar lines of argument used to justify actions or opinions. Patients and their healthcare providers seldom addressed their decision-making roles explicitly. Rather, they constructed patient participation in palliative care decisions in a covert manner. Four interpretive repertoires were identified as constructing patient participation in this organizational context, namely (1) exposing uncertainty, (2) co-constructing patient preferences, (3) affirming patient autonomy, and finally (4) upholding the authority of health care providers. The analysis addressed how patients and health care providers could use these repertoires to negotiate their respective roles in decision-making and exert power over this process during the clinical encounter. Involving patients in the decision-making process gave legitimacy to decisions that profoundly shaped the timing and cause of death of patients. Reflecting on the discourse of decision-making promotes awareness of the clinical and ethical stances that are taken everyday when approaching decisions about end-of-life care.

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)0.017
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0070.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.211 · 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→French-language works237,207→