Palliative care rehabilitation survey: a pilot study of patients’ priorities for rehabilitation goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rehabilitation in palliative care is often overlooked. Settings that do consider occupational or physical therapy for palliative care patients often consult to therapists with competing caseloads. Few therapists specialise in palliative care, but nearly all ask, 'What needs doing'? and 'How well am I doing that'? No existing instruments address their questions. The objective is to develop and test a questionnaire for identifying patient goals and priorities for rehabilitation in palliative care. A questionnaire representing 11 domains of the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance was designed and pilot tested at four palliative care sites. Each question reflected a typical rehabilitation intervention in palliative care. Patients were asked to rate how important each of these interventions was on a numerical rating scale (0, not important-10, extremely important). Open-ended questions captured verbatim comments regarding thoughts of rehabilitation. The questionnaire was tested for test-retest reliability with two interviews approximately 1 week apart. Forty patients participated in the first interview and 32 in the second. Eight of eleven domain sub-scores achieved an intra-class correlation coefficient of 0.6 or higher. The highest means were for the physical (8.2), institutional (7.8) and self-care (7.8) domains on the first interview and for the spiritual domain (7.9) on the second interview. Suggestions are provided to shorten the questionnaire and strengthen validity. This work furthers the understanding of the role of rehabilitation in palliative care. It also illustrates the feasibility of involving palliative care patients in research that contributes to setting standards and measuring quality of service.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".