OP60 Evaluation and further development of a dutch question prompt list on palliative care from the perspective of patients and family
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background 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,1 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. Methods 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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. Reference Clayton J, et al. Br J Cancer 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.
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 | 0.061 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".