Quality of life and palliative care needs of elderly patients with advanced heart failure.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the quality of life and palliative care needs of elderly patients with advanced heart failure (HF). METHODS: This was a correlation descriptive study conducted at a 650-bed sub-acute hospital. Patients who were aged 65 or over, diagnosed with HF of New York Heart Association Class III or IV symptoms, and mentally sound were eligible to the study. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, the overall quality of life single item scale, and the McQill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQoL), were used for measurement. Multiple regression analysis was performed to determine factors for predicting quality of life. RESULTS: A convenience sample of 112 patients was recruited. Their age was 81.5 ± 8.5 years. The three most distressing symptoms reported by the patients were tiredness (5.96 ± 2.78), drowsiness (5.47 ± 2.93), and shortness of breath (5.34 ± 2.96). Their mean overall quality of life single item scale score was 4.72 ± 2.06 out of 10. The mean MQoL physical subscale score was the lowest (4.20 ± 1.767), whereas their mean psychological subscale was the highest (7.14 ± 2.39). However, in a multivariate analysis model, quality of life was significantly associated with existential wellbeing, physical wellbeing, psychological wellbeing and educational level. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight that spiritual concerns are significant palliative care needs among elderly patients with advanced HF, in addition to symptom management. This is in line with the argument that palliative care that places great emphasis on holistic care should be integrated to the care of this group of patients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".