Hospice Residents’ Interest in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (Cam) at end of Life: A Pilot Study in Hospice Residences in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) can improve quality of life at end of life, little research exists on hospice residents' interest in using and sharing CAM experiences with a partner/friend/other family member. A pilot study conducted in British Columbia, Canada explored the extent of hospice residents' interest and openness to CAM use. A convenience sample of 48 hospice residents from 9 hospice sites completed questionnaire-based interviews. The majority of participants were Caucasian women over 60 years old. 81 percent expressed interest in receiving CAM; 79 percent used CAM prior to entering the hospice setting. 50 percent of those interested in using CAM felt their partner/friend/other family member would also be interested in receiving CAM, and half of that 50 percent reported personal interest in sharing the experience. Reasons reported for CAM interest were to enhance well-being, relaxation, and for pain relief. Further research could explore how resident-caregiver dyads may benefit from shared CAM experiences over the illness trajectory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".