The evaluation of a palliative care programme for people suffering from life‐limiting diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To report on the effectiveness of an eight-week palliative care programme in Hong Kong. BACKGROUND: A recent survey reported that the quality of palliative care services in Hong Kong ranked the 20th among 40 countries and it is far behind other Asian countries. There are disagreement and inadequate communication in clinical decision-making among patients, families and healthcare professionals, and that the nurses lack sufficient knowledge and skills in providing palliative care and advance care planning. DESIGN: A pretest post-test design and semi-structured interviews were adopted. METHODS: A total of 108 home care patients with life-limiting disease and their family caregivers in Hong Kong were recruited to complete a set of questionnaire including The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire for Hong Kong Chinese and the Family Satisfaction Scale before and after they attended an eight-week programme. The programme comprised the elements of symptom management, intensive communication on advance care planning and psychosocial intervention. RESULTS: Pearson's chi-square tests and Wilcoxon matched paired tests show a general trend that the patients' quality of life was improved after the programme. Their understanding and active participation in advance care planning was also improved. The hospital readmission rate and the days of hospital stays were significantly reduced. In qualitative interview, four major themes were identified that are as follows: improvement in the communication of treatment plans and after-death arrangements, symptom management, emotional support and suggested areas of improvement. CONCLUSION: The study supports the benefit of implementing a palliative care programme to patients with life-limiting disease. Patients demonstrated improved understanding and changed behaviour as regards the preparation for death and dying after the eight-week programme. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The programme could be replicated in other hospitals and infirmaries that offer home care services.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".