A qualitative study about palliative care patients’ experiences of comfort: Implications for nursing diagnosis and interventions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Comfort is a complex experience, particularly important to palliative care patients. Although it is listed in nursing classifications and taxonomies there is a gap between theory and practice. Thus, little research has been done about patient's perceptions and experiences in this context of care. This paper aims to analyze palliative care patients’ experiences about comfort.Methods: Qualitative study with fifteen participants, using in-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews, tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analyzed using interpretative content analysis.Results: Five main themes have been identified. Holistic comfort may be a difficult outcome for many end-of-life patients but the context of provision of care, the presence of family, the way information is managed, the search for meaning in life, and the need to keep life under control were perceived as important determinants for comfort.Conclusions: This study provides a general overview about comfort experiences and the main discomforts of hospitalized patients who are suffering from chronic and incurable diseases. Findings highlight comfort as a complex intervention within multidisciplinary palliative care team and this is supporting the nursing diagnosis “Impaired Comfort” as a syndrome. The study adds a contribution to the accuracy and completeness of nursing classifications and nursing practice in palliative 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 | 0.016 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".