The impact of an inpatient hospital admission on patients’ physical functioning and quality of life in the oncology setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective : Cancer can affect an individual’s level of physical function and health related quality of life (HRQoL). Those requiring hospital admission may be at risk of further decline during hospitalisation. The aim of this study was to investigate physical functioning and HRQoL of cancer patients on admission and over the course of their hospital admission. Methods : A prospective observational study was undertaken on the inpatient wards of a specialist oncology hospital. Assessment measures were taken bi-weekly until discharge from hospital or if they became too unwell to continue. Functional outcome measures included timed-up and go test (TUG), 30 second sit to stand test (30SST), 30 second arm curl test and isometric muscle strength (30ACT). HRQoL was assessed via the EORTC-C30 and SF-8 and distress was measured using the Distress Thermometer. Results : Fifty-five patients (28 males), mean age 64 years ± 10.8, with an average length of stay of 19 days participated in the study. Primary reasons for hospital admission included; symptom management (36%) or delivery of cancer treatment (35%). On hospital admission, the majority of patients scored worse than normative levels on the EORTC-C30 and SF-8. Similarly, 65%, 69% and 35% recorded below age norms for TUG, 30SST and 30ACT. Most measures showed a trend towards worsening during hospitalisation with up to 59% of patients experiencing ± 10% worsening over time. However, only role and social functioning ( p < .05), as well as financial difficulty showed statistically significant worsening ( p < .05) during hospitalisation. Conclusions : Participants demonstrated substantially reduced HRQoL and physical functioning at time of hospital admission which tended to worsen during hospitalisation. Despite this low level of function, very few received rehabilitation follow-up. Screening programs using HRQoL and functional assessment measures could be useful in identifying patients who are deconditioned or at risk of deconditioning and require specialised therapy to prevent declines in function and hospital re-admissions.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".