A Quality end of Life from A Palliative Care Patient's Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored the meaning of quality of life (QOL) from the perspective of palliative care patients by examining their lived experiences and their perceptions of what contributes to their QOL. Ten in-patients--five women and five men--took part in in-depth, semi-structured interviews. When asked about their QOL, they spoke about three distinct aspects: the meaning of a quality life at this stage in their illness trajectory, the experience of living with the illness, and factors that contributed to their QOL. Patients' approach to life, illness life, and ideal quality life were found to create a sphere of influence that shaped their end-of-life experience. At the heart of living a quality end of life for these patients was their ability to "do the things that I usually do," "be helpful to others," and "live in a caring environment," The findings highlight the importance of understanding each of these factors: patients' approach to life, illness life, and ideal quality of life, and what they mean to patients in order to tailor interventions to enhance their QOL.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".