Symptom burden and quality of life in patients with malignant fungating wounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: This study describes the relationship between symptoms and quality of life in patients with malignant fungating wounds. BACKGROUND: Malignant fungating wounds are complex wounds that can bleed, become malodorous due to infection and are painful causing physical and psychological distress. However, there is a lack of literature on the impact that such wounds can have on quality of life. METHODS: This was a descriptive, cross-sectional multi-centre study of patients with malignant fungating wounds. Participants were recruited from the palliative care, hospice, outpatient clinic and oncology units of three medical centres in Taiwan. Data were collected from February 2008 to August 2009. A structured questionnaire obtained socio-demographic information, medical details, wound assessment information and the Taiwanese version of the McGill quality of life questionnaire was administered by interview. RESULTS: McGill quality of life scores indicated that the participants had the lowest quality of life. The participant's age, dressing change frequency, pain, wound dressing comfort, wound symptom, bleeding and malodour had statistically significant negative correlations with quality of life. Multiple regression analysis showed that age, malodour, pain issues and psychological issues explained 87% of the total variance in quality of life. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to our understanding of the impact of malignant fungating wounds and how correct assessment and management is necessary to improve quality of life. Educational intervention research is needed for patients and caregivers in countries where this has not yet been performed. Further research should also identify whether nursing competence has a direct impact on quality of life.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".