28 Quality of life of patients attending marie curie day hospice over time: preliminary findings from a prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Palliative care day services (PCDS) is a popular if variable palliative intervention provided on a routine basis in many hospices. Aim and method To understand PCDS within Marie Curie hospices we set out to identify the structure process and outcome associated with the service. We present preliminary data on quality of life from the Edinburgh service. A prospective cohort design was used to describe outcomes over an eight-week period. Attendance was recorded. Participants were invited to complete a set of questionnaires to assess quality of life at baseline four weeks and eight weeks post-baseline. Patient assessment involved completion of questionnaires covering physical and emotional health quality of life and wellbeing. The primary outcome measure was QoL as assessed by the McGill Quality of Life scale. Results Over a nine-week period at one day hospice nine patients and five carers consented to participate. Of the nine patients eight were assessed at four-weeks post baseline (one patient was in hospital); seven patients were assessed at eight weeks post-baseline (one patient had died; one was unwell). Over the eight-week follow up period the total mean score remained stable. The single item quality of life score increased a little (as has quality of health care and environment) whilst symptoms worsened as might be expected in this population. Conclusion Day services may sustain quality of life in spite of deteriorating health. Further data collection from two other sites is underway to enhance sample size.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".