MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973894685 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2006.9.658

Suffering at the End of Life in the Setting of Low Physical Symptom Distress

2006· article· en· W1973894685 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adam C. Abraham, Jean S. Kutner, Brenda L. Beaty

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSociety of General Internal Medicine
KeywordsMedicineDistressQuality of life (healthcare)Palliative carePhysical therapyIntensive care medicineGerontologyClinical psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Alleviation of suffering is a fundamental goal of medicine, especially at the end of life. Although physical distress is a component of suffering, other determinants likely play a role. This study attempted to elucidate these other components in an effort to understand the nature of suffering better. METHODS: Prospective cohort study conducted in the Population-based Palliative Care Research Network (PoPCRN) among English-speaking adults. Data were collected at hospice admission and at frequent intervals until death or discharge. This paper presents patient-reported data collected at the first available assessment after admission, using the Condensed Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS; 0=not distressing, 4=very distressing), the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL; 0=worst QOL, 10=best QOL) and 2 suffering scales, overall suffering and suffering caused by physical symptoms (0=not suffering, 10=extreme suffering). The study population (n=48) is limited to those with physical symptoms less than "somewhat" distressing on the MSAS-PHYS. Respondents were divided into two groups: no-mild overall suffering (0-3) and moderate-severe overall suffering (4-10) and compared based on demographics, MQOL scores, MSAS-PSYCH scores and suffering caused by physical symptoms. RESULTS: Mean age 70 years (range, 33-91), mean Karnofsky score 46, 46% married, 54% male, 71% cancer, 93% non-Hispanic white. Compared to patients reporting no-mild overall suffering, patients reporting moderate-severe overall suffering were more likely to have a diagnosis other than cancer (83% vs. 57%, p=0.05), be younger (65 vs. 75 years, p=0.02) and have lower scores on the MQOL-psychological subscale (6.4 vs. 8.0, p=0.02) and overall QOL scale (6.2 vs. 7.2, p=0.04). No significant differences were noted with respect to gender, marital status, MSAS-PSYCH, or MQOL existential and support subscales. Study patients reporting worse overall suffering also reported worse suffering caused by physical symptoms (6.3 vs. 2.1, p<0.0001). There was little association between the MSAS-PHYS score and either overall suffering (correlation coefficient=0.18, p=0.21) or suffering resulting from physical symptoms (correlation coefficient=0.22, p=0.13). CONCLUSION: Patients reporting lack of distress resulting from physical symptoms did not necessarily indicate lack of suffering because of physical symptoms or lack of overall suffering. Factors other than physical symptom distress, such as diagnosis, age, and QOL appear to affect the perception of suffering. In order to better address suffering at the end of life, care must be taken to understand differences between physical symptom distress, suffering caused by physical symptoms and overall suffering.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.309

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.333 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Palliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207