Confirmation of the “disability paradox” among hospice patients: Preservation of quality of life despite physical ailments and psychosocial concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe quality of life (QOL) and psychosocial and spiritual issues among patients receiving hospice care. METHODS: A questionnaire addressing QOL, spirituality, optimism, loss, fears about the terminal process and death anxiety was administered to 66 adults receiving care from 14 hospices. The physical components of QOL (physical symptoms and physical well-being) were rated lower than the psychosocial and spiritual aspects (support, existential well-being, psychological symptoms). RESULTS: Respondents had a strong spiritual connection and a strong sense of hope. Although these individuals did not express anxiety or fear about death, there were concerns about the dying process itself. Also, although most felt at ease with their current situation, respondents were concerned about how their illness was affecting their family. Financial and legal issues did not concern most of these individuals. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: There were few significant associations between patient characteristics and the QOL or other psychosocial or spiritual issues addressed. Among this older terminally ill population receiving hospice care, whose functional status was fair and for whom physical symptoms were troublesome, QOL persisted and a positive outlook prevailed.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".