Perceptions and Attitudes about the Concept and Approach of Palliative Care among Carer’s and Family Members of Patients on End-of-Life Care: A Cross-sectional Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND It is necessary to assess carer's understanding of palliative care. The objectives of this study were to ascertain the attitudes and perceptions about the concept and components of palliative care. METHODS A cross-sectional survey was conducted. Data was collected from the Aga Khan University Hospital in-patient and out-patient departments and home-based palliative care services from mid 2015 to 2016. All adult care-givers who met the inclusion criteria and gave informed consent were approached by trained data collectors till the sample size was reached.Univariate and multivariable analysis and results were reported as crude prevalence’s, crude and adjusted prevalence ratios with 95% confidence intervals using Cox-proportional hazard algorithm. Mean difference of knowledge and attitude scores by care giver variables was assessed using one-way ANOVA. SPSS version 18 was used and a p-value of less than 5 percent was treated as significant. RESULTS Out of 250 care givers more than 60% were 40 years or less and the majority were males. Majority were at least graduates. Approximately 70% of the respondents agreed with the opinion that the person suffering from cancer should be informed about the diagnosis and disease progression. About forty five percent (95% C.I.: 39.03%, 51.37%) of the study respondents had correct knowledge about palliative care. Age and relationship with patient had the most variation in response in terms of significance. CONCLUSION Young individuals aged <40 years, with an education level of matric, children or relations of the patient were found to have significantly more and correct knowledge. The majority believed that the patient should be informed about the diagnosis and that patients should be encouraged to carry out routine activities and be facilitated to fulfill their wishes. Two foundational aspects showed a consistently good understanding and therefore correct knowledge across age groups, gender, education level, and relationship with the patient. Firstly, that palliative care should be offered to everyone suffering from an incurable disease and, secondly, that this approach encompasses not just physical, but also psychological and social needs of the patient, in addition to the needs of the family caring for the patient.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".