Tactile massage reduces rescue doses for pain and anxiety: an observational study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of tactile massage (TM) on palliative care patients. METHOD: An observational study at a hospice ward in Sweden was carried out. Forty-one palliative patients were offered TM, at an average of three treatments per patient. Before and after every treatment, self-assessed pain, well-being and anxiety according to the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (0-10) were recorded. In addition, the number of rescue doses for pain and anxiety was monitored 24 hours before and after the treatment and in two consecutive days before the patients were offered TM (control data). RESULTS: TM resulted in improvement of self-assessed pain by 1.7 points (SD 1.6), anxiety by 2.3 points (SD 2.0) and well-being by 2.6 points (SD 1.4). The number of rescue doses for pain was reduced from 1.6 to 0.84 doses/patient (P<0.001) and for anxiety from 0.52 to 0.24 doses/patient (P<0.01). The number of rescue doses was not changed in the same patients in two consecutive days before the patients were offered TM. The effect was evident already after the first treatment and did not increase further with repeated treatments. No patients reported any harmful effects of the treatment. CONCLUSION: TM reduced the need for administration of rescue doses for pain and anxiety and improved well-being in palliative care patients. Larger randomised studies with parallel control groups are needed to confirm the findings from this observational pilot study.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".