Research on psychological and social factors in palliative care: An invited commentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychosocial factors are a major determinant of well-being in patients with advanced disease. However, the development of valid and reliable measures of meaningful and relevant outcomes and randomized controlled trials to assess the impact of novel interventions are relatively recent accomplishments. AIM: To discuss significant developments in psychosocial research, including work of the author, in palliative populations and to identify areas where uncertainty and controversy persist. DESIGN: The impact of systematic research on psychosocial factors in palliative care over the past four decades is discussed. Particular attention is paid to the development of relevant measures of psychological outcomes and to the results of pilot studies and randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions. RESULTS: A variety of factors, including methodological limitations, protective attitudes of health-care providers, and the progressive deterioration of patients with terminal disease, have presented obstacles to psychosocial research in palliative care. The more recent development of valid and reliable measures of psychological distress and psychological well-being has significantly advanced research in the field. Pilot studies and randomized controlled trials of psychosocial interventions have yielded promising results, although the demonstrated impact on primary outcomes in these studies has typically been modest. CONCLUSION: Psychosocial research in palliative care has grown in rigor and volume over the past several decades, and a variety of novel interventions have been developed and evaluated. However, the findings from this research have only begun to have an impact on clinical practice in palliative care.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".