Phase II Study of an Outpatient Palliative Care Intervention in Patients With Metastatic Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Although there is increasing advocacy for timely symptom control in patients with cancer, few studies have assessed outpatient palliative care clinics. This study assessed prospectively the efficacy of an Oncology Palliative Care Clinic (OPCC) in improving patient symptom distress and satisfaction. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients were new referrals to an OPCC, had metastatic cancer, were at least 18 years old, and were well enough and able to speak and read English sufficiently to provide informed consent and complete questionnaires. Patients received a consultation by a palliative care team. The primary end points of symptom control and patient satisfaction were assessed using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and patient-adapted Family Satisfaction with Advanced Cancer Care (FAMCARE) scale at baseline, 1 week, and 1 month. Initial and follow-up scores were compared using paired t tests. RESULTS: Of 150 patients enrolled, 123 completed 1-week assessments, and 88 completed 4-week assessments. At baseline, the mean ESAS Distress Score (EDS) was 39.5. The mean improvement in EDS was 8.8 points (P < .0001) at 1 week and 7.0 points (P < .0001) at 1 month. Statistically significant improvements were observed for pain, fatigue, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, dyspnea, insomnia, and constipation at 1 week (all P < or = .005) and 1 month (all P < or = .05). The mean improvement in FAMCARE score was 6.1 points (P < .0001) at 1 week and 5.0 points (P < .0001) at 1 month. CONCLUSION: This phase II study demonstrates efficacy of an OPCC for improvement of symptom control and patient satisfaction with care. Randomized controlled trials are indicated to further evaluate the effectiveness of specialized outpatient 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".