Palliative care or end-of-life care in advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease A prospective community survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Calls for better end-of-life care for advanced chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) reflect the large number who die from the disease and their considerable unmet needs. AIM: To determine palliative care needs in advanced COPD. DESIGN: Cross-sectional interview study in patients' homes using structured questionnaires generated from 44 south London general practices. METHOD: One hundred and sixty-three (61% response) patients were interviewed, mean age 72 years, 50% female, with diagnosis of COPD and at least two of: forced expiratory volume in the first second (FEV(1)) <40% predicted, hospital admissions or acute severe exacerbations with COPD, long-term oxygen therapy, cor pulmonale, use of oral steroids, and being housebound. Patients with advanced cancer, severe alcohol-related or mental health problems, or learning difficulties, were excluded; 145 patients were included in the analysis. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-eight (88%) participants reported shortness of breath most days/every day, 45% were housebound, 75% had a carer. Medical records indicated that participants were at least as severe as non-participants. Eighty-two (57%) had severe breathlessness; 134 (92%) said breathlessness was their most important problem; 31 (21%) were on suboptimal treatment; 42 (30%) who were severely affected had not been admitted to hospital in the previous 2 years; 86 of 102 who had been admitted would want admission again if unwell to the same extent. None expressed existential concerns and few discussed need in terms of end-of-life care, despite severe breathlessness and impairment. CONCLUSION: Needs in advanced COPD were considerable, with many reporting severe intractable breathlessness. Palliation of breathlessness was a priority, but discussion of need was seldom in terms of 'end-of-life 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".