A Mixed-Methods Approach to Understanding the Palliative Needs of Parkinson’s Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parkinson's disease (PD) is the second-most common age-related neurodegenerative disorder. Despite recommendations for a palliative approach, little is known about what palliative needs are unmet by standard care. This study aims to (a) identify palliative needs of PD patients, (b) determine the relationship between palliative needs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and (c) probe into factors affecting HRQoL. PD patients and neurologists were recruited for a survey on palliative need; a subset of patients was interviewed. Significant differences between physicians and patients were found in Physical, Psychological, Social, Financial, and Spiritual domains. Physical and Psychological needs predicted HRQoL. Primary themes across interviews included (a) lack of healthcare education and (b) need for care coordination. Secondary themes included (a) the importance of support groups, (b) the role of spirituality/religion, and (c) the narrow perceived role of the neurologist. Findings highlight the importance of coordinated individualized 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 | 0.087 | 0.080 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".