Health-related quality of life in patients with advanced cancer who express a wish to hasten death: A comparative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Some evidence suggests the wish to hasten death is related to poor health-related quality of life. Deficits in perceived dignity and self-efficacy are risk factors for wish to hasten death that also impact health-related quality of life. Aim: To compare perceived health-related quality of life, dignity and self-efficacy in patients with advanced cancer who either do (case group) or do not (control group) express a wish to hasten death. Cases and controls were matched on sociodemographic and functional characteristics. Design: A comparative cross-sectional study. Participants: A total of 153 adult patients with advanced cancer were assessed for wish to hasten death using the Desire for Death Rating Scale. Scores ⩾1 indicate some degree of wish to hasten death (case group, n = 51), and score = 0 implies no wish to hasten death (control group, n = 102). Assessments included health-related quality of life using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Core 15-Item Palliative Questionnaire, perceived loss of dignity using the Patient Dignity Inventory and self-efficacy using the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Results: Patients with a wish to hasten death had worse emotional functioning ( p < 0.001), greater perceived loss of dignity ( p < 0.001) and lower self-efficacy ( p = 0.001). There was no difference in most physical symptoms. Perceived overall health-related quality of life was significantly worse for those with a clinically relevant wish to hasten death ( p = 0.023) and marginally worse for the case group than the control group ( p = 0.052). Conclusion: Patients with wish to hasten death showed lower perceived dignity, self-efficacy and emotional quality of life than patients without wish to hasten death without necessarily perceiving worse physical 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".