Establishment and evaluation of a new ‘telehealth supported’ model of care which promotes family-centred palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Growing elderly populations, improved treatments and rising multi-morbidity are increasing the demand for palliative care for patients suffering from life-threatening illnesses and their families. As a result, telepalliative care, as a supplement to specialised palliative care, has evolved and is altering the provision of palliative care. However, adaptation is slow and the methods of telepalliative care have yet to be fully understood, including the ability to provide mediated empathy and compassion for patients and families. Objective: To propose an international model of care for telepalliative care. Methods: This PhD project will be performed part time from Jan 2021 to Dec 2026 and consists of three studies focusing on palliative care patients’, families’ and specialists’ perspectives, and the core competencies of palliative care. 1) A systematic integrative review, inspired by Toronto and Remmington, will outline the current state of telepalliative care. 2) A qualitative explorative study based on interpretive description, on how telepalliative care transpires will be performed at multiple palliative care settings in both Denmark and Australia. Semi-structured interviews, focus group interviews and participant observations will be employed. 3) Based on these results, focus group interviews will be performed in order to propose an international model of care for telepalliative care. In this project, telepalliative care is limited to real-time video consultations. Data will be analysed using inductive thematic analysis. Expected results: Preliminary results of Study 1 can be expected by June 2021. The main result, a proposed international model of care for telepalliative care, will incorporate how relations are built, trust gained and timeliness of telepalliative care. This can form the basis for future research, including testing and evaluating the model of care. A model of care for telepalliative care may reduce adaptation barriers, increase benefits for patients and families and expand the use of telepalliative 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 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 | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".