Palliative Care and Parkinson's Disease: Caregiver Perspectives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palliative care for Parkinson's disease (PD) is an emerging area of interest for clinicians, patients and families. Identifying the palliative care needs of caregivers is central to developing and implementing palliative services for families affected by PD. The objective of this paper was to elicit PD caregiver needs, salient concerns, and preferences for care using a palliative care framework. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 11 PD caregivers and one non-overlapping focus group (n = 4) recruited from an academic medical center and community support groups participated in qualitative semi-structured interviews. Interviews and focus group discussion were digitally recorded, transcribed and entered into ATLAS.ti for coding and analysis. We used inductive qualitative data analysis techniques to interpret responses. RESULTS: Caregivers desired access to emotional support and education regarding the course of PD, how to handle emergent situations (e.g. falls and psychosis) and medications. Participants discussed the immediate impact of motor and non-motor symptoms as well as concerns about the future, including: finances, living situation, and caretaking challenges in advanced disease. Caregivers commented on the impact of PD on their social life and communication issues between themselves and patient. All participants expressed interest and openness to multidisciplinary approaches for addressing these needs. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers of PD patients have considerable needs that may be met through a palliative care approach. Caregivers were receptive to the idea of multidisciplinary care in order to meet these needs. Future research efforts are needed to develop and test the clinical and cost effectiveness of palliative services for PD caregivers.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it