MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037874378 · doi:10.1017/s1478951520000413

“Truly holistic?” Differences in documenting physical and psychosocial needs and hope in Portuguese palliative patients

2020· article· en· W3037874378 on OpenAlexaffabout
Miguel Julião, María Ana Sobral, Paula Calçada, Bárbara Antunes, Baltazar Nunes, Ana Vaz De Braganca, Daniela Runa, Paulo Faria de Sousa, Harvey Max Chochinov, Éduardo Bruera

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyCancerCare Manitoba
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPsychosocialPalliative careMedicineFeelingNauseaQuality of life (healthcare)ConstipationDocumentationPhysical therapyFamily medicinePsychiatryPsychologyNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Palliative care (PC) aims to improve patients' and families' quality of life through an approach that relieves physical, psychosocial, and spiritual suffering, although the latter continues to be under-assessed and under-treated. This study aimed to describe the prevalence of physical, psychosocial, and hope assessments documented by a PC team in the first PC consultation. METHOD: The retrospective descriptive analysis of all first PC consultations registered in our anonymized database (December 2018-January 2020), searching for written documentation regarding (1) Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) physical subscale (pain, tiredness, nausea, drowsiness, appetite, shortness of breath, constipation, insomnia, and well-being), (2) the single question "Are you depressed?" (SQD), (3) the question "Do you feel anxious?" (SQA), (4) feeling a burden, (5) hope-related concerns, (6) the dignity question (DQ), and (7) will to live (WtL). RESULTS: Of the 174 total of patients anonymously registered in our database, 141 PC home patients were considered for analysis; 63% were male, average age was 70 years, the majority had malignancies (82%), with a mean performance status of 52%. Evidence of written documentation was (1) ESAS pain (96%), tiredness (89%), nausea (89%), drowsiness (79%), appetite (89%), shortness of breath (82%), constipation (74%), insomnia (72%), and well-being (52%); (2) the SQD (39%); (3) the SQA (11%); (4) burden (26%); (5) hope (11%); (6) the DQ (33%); and (7) WtL (33%).Significant differences were found between the frequencies of all documented items of the ESAS physical subscale (29%), and all documented psychosocial items (SQD + SQA + burden + DQ) (1%), hope (11%), and WtL (33%) (p = 0.0000; p = 0.0005; p = 0.0181, respectively). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: There were differences between documentation of psychosocial, hope, and physical assessments after the first PC consultation, with the latter being much more frequent. Further research using multicenter data is now required to help identify barriers in assessing and documenting non-physical domains of end-of-life experience.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.102
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.297 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePalliative & Supportive CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207