Quality of Life in a Hospice: A Validation of the Croatian Version of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Quality of life is the cornerstone of palliative care, and assessing it requires validated and standardized questionnaires. However, the majority of questionnaires are not tested in a hospice setting. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the quality of life in a hospice using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 15 for Palliative Care (PAL) (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL) questionnaire and validating it in Croatian language. METHODS: The study was conducted prospectively on 151 consecutive patients who were evaluated at the admittance to the hospice and after 7 days. Along with the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL, both evaluations included the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the Palliative Performance Score (PPS) version 2. Cronbach α coefficient was used to test the reliability of multi-item scales, while construct and concurrent validity was tested using the Pearson correlation coefficients. Known-group validity was evaluated using the Student t test. RESULTS: Physical functioning, pain, and emotional functioning scales all exhibited high reliability on both assessments and met the criteria of Cronbach α ≥.70, while fatigue scale met the predetermined criteria in the follow-up assessment (α = .90). Adequate validity was also displayed, with the highest correlation coefficients between the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and ESAS scales recorded for the corresponding items. The EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL was also able to distinguish patients with different PPS scores, exhibiting excellent clinical validity. CONCLUSIONS: The EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL can be used successfully in Croatian palliative care. However, inevitable issues such as low retest percentage due to short survival and low physical functioning scores need to be acknowledged in further formulations of quality of life questionnaires specific to hospice 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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".