Divergent Perspectives on the Use of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (Revised) in Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (Revised) (ESAS-r) contains 9 questions pertaining to symptoms/well-being. It is a standardized patient-reported assessment instrument, but inconsistently used in palliative care. Thus, a problem exists in knowledge translation regarding routine use of the ESAS-r in palliative practice. The objective was to understand clinicians' perspectives on the use of the ESAS-r in palliative care in hospitals and at home. Qualitative focus groups (n = 14 with 46 clinicians) and interviews (n = 24) elicited views regarding use of the ESAS-r in palliative practice. Interpretive description was used as a general approach to this qualitative analysis focused on understanding clinicians' views. Palliative clinicians presented multiple perspectives of the ESAS-r pertaining to their (1) underlying values, (2) disparate purposes, and (3) incommensurate responses toward use in daily practice. Benefits and challenges supported diversity within these themes, highlighting divergence among perspectives and complexity of integrating a standardized tool in patient care. Integration of the ESAS-r in palliative care requires (1) educational support for developing competence; (2) consideration of clinicians' existing, heterogeneous beliefs regarding the use of standardized assessment instruments; and (3) Consultation with multidisciplinary practitioners about optimal ways that ESAS-r results can be used in a person-centered approach to 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".