Specialized Home Palliative Care for Adults and Children: Differences and Similarities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the provision of specialized home palliative care (SHPC) by the adult and pediatric SHPC teams at the Munich University Hospital. METHODS: All patients treated by one of the SHPC teams and their primary caregivers were eligible for the prospective nonrandomized survey. We analyzed the demographics, the underlying diseases, duration and impact of SHPC on symptom control and quality of life (QOL) as well as the caregivers' burden and QOL. RESULTS: Between April 2011 and June 2012, 100 adult and 43 pediatric patients were treated consecutively; 60 adults (median age, 67.5 years; 55% male) and 40 children (median age, 6 years, 57% male) were included in the study. Oncologic diseases were dominant only in the adult cohort (87 versus 25%, p<0.001). The median period of care was higher in the pediatric sample (11.8 versus 4.3 weeks; NS). Ninety-five percent of adult and 45% of pediatric patients died by the end of the study (p<0.001), 75% and 90% of them at home, respectively. The numbers of significant others directly affected by the patient's disease was higher in children (mean 3.4 versus 1.2; p<0.001). The QOL of adult patients and children (p<0.05 for both), as well as of their primary caregivers (p<0.001 for both) improved during SHPC, while the caregivers' burden was lowered (p<0.001 for both). CONCLUSIONS: Our results show important differences in several clinically relevant parameters between adults and children receiving SHPC. This should assist in the development of age-group specific SHPC concepts that effectively address the specific needs of each patient population.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".