OP60 Evaluation and further development of a dutch question prompt list on palliative care from the perspective of patients and family
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> Patients and family often do not know what to expect of an advance care planning (ACP) consultation. Question prompt lists (QPL) help them to gain insight into and express their wishes and questions. We developed the ‘Leiden Guide for Palliative care’ (LGP), combining an adapted Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale and a translated QPL on palliative care,<sup>1</sup> to hand out before the ACP consultation with palliative care specialists. The goals of this study were to evaluate personal experiences of patients and family with the LGP, and to further develop the LGP. <h3>Methods</h3> In this qualitative study semi-structured interviews with six patients and seven family members were conducted. Manual coding and thematic analysis were done by two researchers. <h3>Results</h3> Three main themes for optimal use of the LGP were identified: 1. Prerequisites: early in disease trajectory; adequate introduction by the healthcare professional (HCP); positive first impression. 2. Benefits: provides complete overview of ACP topics and relevant questions; facilitates end of life discussions, also between family members. 3. Practical use: preferably the LGP is reviewed with family 1–2 days before the consultation. With detailed suggestions on content and format we constructed an improved LGP. <h3>Conclusion</h3> Patients and family consider the LGP as helpful and useful in preparation and during ACP consultations with palliative care specialists, provided that the prerequisites are met. The usefulness of the LGP in ACP discussions with generalist HCPs and in different settings is subject of further study. <h3>Reference</h3> Clayton J, <i>et al. Br J Cancer</i> 2003.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it