'The real stuff': implications for nursing of assessing and measuring a terminally ill person's quality of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two quality of life (QoL) assessment and measurement tools, the Client Generated Index (CGI) and the McGill Quality of Life (MQOL) questionnaires, were trialled within district nursing palliative care to test usefulness and feasibility for holistic intervention selection, individualized palliative care planning, and measurement of the quality of dying. The specific focus of this paper is to discuss the less tangible outcomes of the trial, which illuminate the partly 'hidden' value and nature of clinical nursing. These outcomes include awareness that the use of such tools may: by actual administration of the tool be, in and of itself, a therapeutic nursing action; focus on 'the real stuff from the client's perspective, that which matters most to the terminally ill client, but may not be classically considered as prompting nursing intervention; and facilitate 'the real stuff' of nursing, perhaps known but not usually articulated by nurses, and which usually does not feature on care plans nor in time allocation schedules.
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 | 0.113 | 0.347 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| 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".