Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To ascertain the thoughts of families that chose and realized end-of-life care at home based on events that occurred to the families until the realization of such care and thoughts related to such events. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews of family members (primary caregivers) who had played a central role in end-of-life care at home after the cessation of home care for the patient and lost the patient one year before the interview. We then analyzed the data qualitatively and inductively. Results: On interviewing eight family members involved in seven cases, one core category and five other categories were identified. The thoughts of the families that realized end-of-life care at home represented a culmination reflecting family members' thoughts with regard to the end-of-life care, the time that the family had spent together with the patient, the history built together, and the bond between the patient and family members. Thus, the core category was “end-of-life care was possible because the family worked together.” Conclusion: The results suggest that the participants decided to select the patient's home as the place for end-oflife care because they believed that it was the appropriate place for the patient to receive medical care while helping him/her live his/her life as he/she wishes and for the family members to spend time together with the patient until the patient's final moments.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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".