Effectiveness of a Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care Service as Experienced by Patients and Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In Germany since 2007 patients with advanced life-limiting diseases are eligible for Specialized Outpatient Palliative Care (SOPC). To provide this service, SOPC teams have been established as a new facility in the health care system. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of one of the first SOPC teams based at the Munich University Hospital. METHODS: All patients treated by the SOPC team and their primary caregivers were eligible for this prospective nonrandomized study. The main topics of the surveys before and after involvement of the SOPC team were: for patients, the assessment of symptom burden (Minimal Documentation System for Palliative Medicine, MIDOS), satisfaction with quality of palliative care (Palliative Outcome Scale, POS), and quality of life (McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire, MQOL); for caregivers, burden of care (Häusliche Pflegeskala, home care scale, HPS), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, HADS), and quality of life (Quality of Life in Life-Threatening Illness-Family Carer Version, QOLLTI-F). RESULTS: Of 100 patients treated between April and November 2011, 60 were included in the study (median age 67.5 years, 55% male, 87% oncological diseases). In 23 of 60 patients, only caregivers could be interviewed. The median interval between the first and second interview was 2.5 weeks. Quality of life increased significantly in patients (p<0.05) and caregivers (p<0.001), as did the patients' perception of quality of palliative care (POS, p<0.001), while the caregivers' psychological distress and burden of care significantly decreased (HADS, p<0.001; HPS, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The involvement of an SOPC team leads to a significant improvement in the quality of life of patients and caregivers and can lower the burden of home care for the caregivers of severely ill patients.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".