Palliative care in multicultural communities: A phenomenological study exploring the lived experiences of nursing staff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to better understand and describe the lived experiences of the nursing staff at a large palliative care facility in Toronto when working with terminally ill patients from diverse ethno/racial background. A phenomenological approach was chosen. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews with twelve nurses. The themes identified were: the importance of a patient's culture at end-of-life, the challenges of cross cultural palliative care, the skills to meet those challenges, the relevance of education and training in this setting, and the nurses' personal feelings of comfort with culture. The interrelated themes illustrated the nurses' experience of caring for culturally diverse patient populations. Implications for social work and nursing practice are found in the importance of role comprehension for interdisciplinary team functioning. Implications for future research include the need to study the experiences of each team member to foster a more comprehensive depiction of cross-cultural palliative care. The study was limited by its sample size and in the inexperience of the researcher. However, this phenomenological study should be seen as a contribution to the ongoing effort of understanding the lived experiences of palliative care professionals.
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 | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".