A Cross-Sectional Examination of the Association Between Dyspnea and Distress as Experienced by Palliative Home Care Clients and Their Informal Caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the association between dyspnea and distress as experienced by both palliative home care clients and their informal caregivers as a unit of care. Cross-sectional analysis was conducted using the interRAI Palliative Care Assessment database. Responses from 6,655 individual palliative home care clients across six regional jurisdictions in Ontario, Canada were included. This study found that clients experiencing dyspnea were more likely to show overall signs of distress; report one or more signs of self-reported distress; and be at risk for depression when compared to clients who do not experience dyspnea. Caregivers of clients experiencing dyspnea were more likely to exhibit distress than caregivers of clients not reporting dyspnea. When indicators of caregiver distress and client distress were combined, 53% of the caregiver-client units exhibited distress. Social work practitioners should include a focus on distress within the care unit as a priority when care planning to meet the needs of persons nearing the end of life. Members of the care team should consider available treatment and management options tailored to meet both the client and their informal caregiver's needs.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".