Een handreiking voor familieleden over palliatieve zorg bij dementie: evaluatie door zorgverleners en familieleden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Families of nursing home residents with dementia are usually involved in care and treatment decisions. To this end, family needs to be informed on the course of the dementia and possible palliative care. Based on a Canadian booklet, we developed an adapted version for use in the Netherlands. Elderly care physicians (n = 30), nurses (n = 38), and bereaved families (n = 59) evaluated the booklet and possible implementation strategies. All respondents confirmed that in general, there is a need of an information brochure on comfort care and end-of-life issues for families. Most (93%) families believed they would have found the booklet useful when received earlier. Compared to the physicians, nurses more frequently found the booklet useful to most or all families (p = 0.04). Acceptance, as measured on an 8-item scale, was highest among families and lowest among physicians. Overall usefulness was often perceived as high (means 7.9 to 8.3; scale range 0-10; SD 0.9 to 1.4) and did not differ across groups of respondents (p = 0.29). All respondents agreed that professional caregivers should have a role in providing the booklet. Additionally, half (53%; no difference across groups) favoured availability of the booklet through families' own initiative; some already before admission. In conclusion, there is a high need for written information on palliative care. The booklet is highly appreciated. A further improved version may support professional and family caregivers in practice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".