Knowledge in palliative care of nursing professionals at a Spanish hospital
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: to determine the level of knowledge in palliative care of nursing staff at a Spanish tertiary care hospital. METHOD: descriptive, cross-sectional study. Data were collected about the results of the Spanish version of the Palliative Care Quiz for Nurses (PCQN), sociodemographic aspects, education level and experience in the field of palliative care. Univariate and bivariate descriptive analysis was applied. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05 in all cases. RESULTS: 159 professionals participated (mean age 39.51 years ± 10.25, with 13.96 years ± 10.79 of professional experience) 54.7% possessed experience in palliative care and 64.2% educational background (mainly basic education). The mean percentage of hits on the quiz was 54%, with statistically significant differences in function of the participants' education and experience in palliative care. CONCLUSIONS: although the participants show sufficient knowledge on palliative care, they would benefit from a specific training program, in function of the mistaken concepts identified through the quiz, which showed to be a useful tool to diagnose professionals' educational needs in 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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".