Satisfaction with End-Of-Life Care: A Longitudinal study of Patients and Their Family Caregivers in the Last months of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine whether and how ratings of satisfaction with end-of-life (EOL) care change over time and across settings, we administered a satisfaction questionnaire to patients 55 years and older with advanced medical disease and their family caregivers (FCGs). We re-interviewed approximately every two months for a maximum of four visits. Overall, 97 patients and 68 FCGs completed a baseline interview; 57 and 40 completed two interviews, 35 and 22 completed three, and 15 and 10 completed four. Patient satisfaction increased over time and in three of the six questionnaire domains, but this was largely confounded with the location of interview. Satisfaction scores were greater among patients whose baseline interviews occurred at home. FCGs reported increased satisfaction over time; members of the subgroup that cared for patients who died during the study were less satisfied in the spirituality domain during bereavement than prior to their relative's death. Satisfaction with care tends to vary based on location of interview and may vary across time with respect to certain aspects of EOL 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".