MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2525330821 · doi:10.1111/jnu.12254

Differences in Symptom Distress Based on Gender and Palliative Care Designation Among Hospitalized Patients

2016· article· en· W2525330821 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hanna Falk, Ingela Henoch, Anneli Ozanne, Joakim Öhlén, Eva Jakobsson Ung, Isabell Fridh, Elisabeth Kenne Sarenmalm, Kristin Falk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Scholarship · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth and Medical Care Committee of the Regional Executive Board, Region Västra GötalandSahlgrenska UniversitetssjukhusetVästra Götalandsregionen
KeywordsDistressMedicinePalliative careDocumentationHealth careDescriptive statisticsTest (biology)NauseaScale (ratio)Family medicinePsychiatryClinical psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To explore patient-reported symptom distress in relation to documentation of symptoms and palliative care designation in hospital inpatients. DESIGN: This cross-sectional study analyzed data from 710 inpatients at two large hospitals in Sweden using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale. Chart reviews focused on nurses' and physicians' symptom documentation and palliative turning point. METHODS: Descriptive statistics were calculated for all variables and provided summaries about the sample. Patients were grouped according to gender, age, palliative care designation, and symptom documentation. The t test and chi-square test were used to calculate whether symptom distress varied between groups. A two-way analysis of variance was conducted for multiple comparisons to explore the impact of gender and age on mean symptom distress. FINDINGS: Females reported higher levels of symptom distress than did males related to pain, fatigue, and nausea. When comparing symptom distress between males and females with documentation pertaining to symptoms, there were significant differences implying that females had to report higher levels of symptom distress than males in order to have their symptoms documented. CONCLUSIONS: Females need to report higher levels of symptom distress than do males for healthcare professionals to identify and document their symptoms. It can be hypothesized that females are not receiving the same attention and symptom alleviation as men. If so, this highlights a serious inequality in care that requires further exploration. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Considering that common reasons why people seek health care are troublesome symptoms of illness, and that the clinical and demographic characteristics of inpatients are changing towards more advanced ages with serious illnesses, inadequate symptom assessment and management are a serious threat to the care quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.150
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing ScholarshipSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207