Early Palliative Care: Opinions & Attitudes of Canadian Palliative Care Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our aim was to describe Canadian palliative care physiciansâ attitudes and opinions about early palliative care and to determine factors associated with receiving early referrals. The response rate was 71% (531/747); 48% (257/531) were SPC physicians. The majority reported that for cancer (93.9%) and non-cancer (90.2%) patients, referral to palliative care should ideally be early. Only 20.5% reported the average survival for patients referred to them was >6 months. Having completed a Masters/PhD (OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.5); providing care mainly for non-cancer patients (4.0, 1.3-12.3); and female sex (2.7, 1.2-6.2) were associated with receiving early referrals. Those agreeing that patients should have stopped all chemotherapy before palliative care referral (0.34, 0.16-0.73) were less likely to receive early referrals. We conclude that timing of referral may be related to characteristics of the receiving physician rather than only the referring physician.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".