Perspectives of patients, family caregivers and physicians about the use of opioids for refractory dyspnea in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A recent national practice guideline recommends the use of opioids for the treatment of refractory dyspnea in patients with advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We conducted two qualitative studies to explore the experiences of patients and family caregivers with opioids for refractory COPD-related dyspnea and the perspectives and attitudes of physicians toward opioids in this context. METHODS: Patients (n = 8; 5 men, 3 women), their caregivers (n = 12; 5 men, 7 women) and physicians (n = 28, 17 men, 11 women) in Nova Scotia participated in the studies. Semistructured interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, coded conceptually and analyzed for emergent themes using interpretive description methodology. RESULTS: Patients reported that opioids provided a sense of calm and relief from severe dyspnea. Family caregivers felt that opioids helped patients to breathe more "normally," observed improvements in patients' symptoms of anxiety and depression, and experienced reductions in their own stress. Patients reported substantial improvements in their quality of life. All patients and family caregivers wanted opioid therapy to continue. Most physicians were reluctant to prescribe opioids for refractory dyspnea, describing a lack of related knowledge and experience, and fears related to the potential adverse effects and legal censure. INTERPRETATION: Discrepancies between the positive experiences of patients and family caregivers with opioids and the reluctance of physicians to prescribe opioids for refractory dyspnea constitute an important gap in care. Bridging this gap will require initiatives to improve the uptake of practice guidelines and to increase confidence in prescribing opioids for dyspnea refractory to conventional treatment.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".