La percezione degli operatori sanitari sulle cure palliative come mezzo per promuovere la qualità di vita dei pazienti e prevenire le richieste eutanasich / Healthcare workers’ perception of palliative care as a means to foster patients' quality of life and to prevent euthanasia requests*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nel 2010 è stata emanata in Italia la Legge 38, che punta a migliorare formazione e tirocini nel campo delle cure palliative, sebbene al momento non esista un sistema nazionale di monitoraggio di tali pratiche su scala nazionale. A livello internazionale l’eutanasia si è andata sempre più configurando come trattamento possibile fra le cure di fine vita, mentre in Italia resta formalmente illegale. Esistono alcuni studi italiani sulle prospettive dei pazienti rispetto alle cure palliative e all’eutanasia, ma la letteratura relativa alla percezione degli operatori sanitari palliativisti è esigua. Scopo del presente studio è l’indagine di tali percezioni, sia rispetto alla qualità delle cure palliative sia al potenziale ruolo dell’eutanasia nelle cure di fine vita in Italia. La ricerca è stata condotta in tre hospice romani. È stato sviluppato e somministrato un questionario con 75 item graduati secondo la scala Likert a 5 punti, utilizzando come metodi di analisi l’analisi fattoriale e, per la parte statistica, SPSS. Il questionario è stato completato da 56 soggetti. Nella percezione dei partecipanti, i fattori rilevanti per la qualità delle cure palliative sono risultati sette: sofferenza fisica e sociale, benessere psicologico e spirituale, benessere emozionale, partecipazione alle decisioni, compassione, speranza ed empatia. Inoltre, le cure palliative ridurrebbero il desiderio di morte e di eutanasia. I fattori più importanti che emergono dal lavoro sono la sofferenza o il benessere sociali, fisici e psicologici. Gli operatori sanitari coinvolti nello studio non sostengono l’ipotesi dell’eutanasia e anzi ritengono che le cure palliative riducano il desiderio di ottenerla. ---------- In 2010, the State Law no 38 was enacted in Italy, seeking to improve palliative care education and training. There is currently no national monitoring system for palliative care practices in Italy. Euthanasia has become increasingly available internationally as an alternative amidst end-of-life care options, although in Italy this is not the case, and it is formally illegal. Although there are a few studies regarding patients’ perspectives regarding the issue of palliative care and euthanasia in Italy, there is limited literature focused on the perspectives of palliative care health care professionals. The purpose of this study is to explore the perspectives of hospice workers regarding both the quality of palliative care and the potential role of euthanasia in end-of-life care in Italy. This research was conducted with hospice clinicians in three hospices in Rome. A 75 item 5-point Likert scale questionnaire was developed and administered. Factor analysis was used, and descriptive statistics were performed using SPSS. Fifty-six respondents completed the questionnaire. From participants’ perspectives, there are seven significant factors explaining the quality of palliative care in Italy: social and physical suffering, psychological and spiritual well-being, emotional well-being, participation in decision making, compassion, hope, and empathy in care, while reducing patients’ desire for death and euthanasia. The most important of these factors regard social, physical and psychological suffering and well-being. Hospice workers in this study did not support euthanasia and felt that palliative care decreases the patient’s desire for euthanasia. * The manuscript was presented as an abstract in an International Congress on Palliative 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.002 |
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".