Why are patients with blood cancers more likely to die without hospice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although patients with blood cancers have significantly lower rates of hospice use than those with solid malignancies, data explaining this gap in end-of-life care are sparse. METHODS: In 2015, we conducted a mailed survey of a randomly selected sample of hematologic oncologists in the United States to characterize their perspectives regarding the utility and adequacy of hospice for blood cancer patients, as well as factors that might impact referral patterns. Simultaneous provision of care for patients with solid malignancies was permitted. RESULTS: We received 349 surveys (response rate, 57.3%). The majority of respondents (68.1%) strongly agreed that hospice care is helpful for patients with hematologic cancers; those with practices including greater numbers of solid tumor patients (at least 25%) were more likely to strongly agree (odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-3.52). Despite high levels of support for hospice in general, 46.0% felt that home hospice is inadequate for their patients' needs (as compared to inpatient hospice with round-the-clock care). Although more than half of the respondents reported that they would be more likely to refer patients to hospice if red cell and/or platelet transfusions were available, those who considered home hospice inadequate were even more likely to report that they would (67.3% vs 55.3% for red cells [P = .03] and 52.9% vs 39.7% for platelets [P = .02]). CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that although hematologic oncologists value hospice, concerns about the adequacy of services for blood cancer patients limit hospice referrals. To increase hospice enrollment for blood cancer patients, interventions tailoring hospice services to their specific needs are warranted. Cancer 2017;123:3377-84. © 2017 American Cancer Society.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".