Comfort level of caregivers of cancer patients receiving palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To verify the association between the level of comfort of the caregiver and socio-demographic variables related to caregiving, and the patient's functional status and symptoms. METHOD: Cross-sectional study with non-probabilistic intentional sample. The instruments Palliative Performance Scale (score 0 to 100%), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (symptom scores from zero to ten) and Holistic Comfort Questionnaire (total score ranging from 49 to 294 and mean score from 1 to 6) were used. The relationship between comfort scores and independent variables was calculated by multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Fifty informal caregivers participated in the study - 80% were female, 32% were 60 years old or older, 36% were children of the patient, 58% had paid work and 60% did not have help in the care. The mean overall comfort was 4.52 points. A better functional status of the patients was associated with higher levels of comfort of the caregivers. Older caregivers who received helped in the care activities presented higher comfort scores. CONCLUSION: The level of comfort of caregivers of cancer patients receiving palliative care was associated with socio-demographic variables and patients' functional status and symptoms.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".