MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133591948 · doi:10.1017/s1478951521000183

“Hello. May I speak with someone, please? It's not about my physical pain.”: A retrospective study about the factors associated with phone calls to a Portuguese home-based palliative care team

2021· article· en· W3133591948 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePalliative & Supportive Care · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyCancerCare Manitoba
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care Research
KeywordsPhonePsychosocialPortuguesePalliative careRetrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Telephone availability is integrated into our home-based palliative care team (HPCT) with the aim of helping terminally ill patients and their caregivers alleviate their physical and psychosocial suffering, in addition to the team's home visits. We aimed to compare the differences between non-callers (patients with no phone calls during the team's follow-up period) vs. callers (≥1 phone call during the team's follow-up period) across sociodemographic, clinical, physical, and psychosocial variables. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of all patients with and without phone call entries registered in our anonymized database, from October 2018 to September 2020. RESULTS: We analyzed 389 patients: 58% were male, and the average age was 71 years old; 84% had malignancies, with a mean palliative performance status of 45%. The majority of patients (n = 281, 72%) made at least one phone call to HPCT. On average, a mean of 2.5 calls (SD = 3.61; range: 0-26) per patient was registered. Callers compared with non-callers more frequently lived with someone (p = 0.030), preferred home as a place to die (p = 0.039), had more doctor (p = 0.010) and nurse home visits (p = 0.006), a prolonged HPCT follow-up time (p = 0.053), along with more frequent emergency room visits (p < 0.001) and hospitalizations (p = 0.043). Moreover, those who made at least one phone call to the HPCT had a higher frequency of conspiracy of silence (p = 0.046), anxiety (p = 0.044), and lower palliative performance status (p = 0.001). No statistically significant associations or differences were found for the other variables. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Several factors seem to correlate with an increased number of phone calls, and physical suffering does not play a relevant role in triggering contacts, in contrast with psychosocial and other clinical factors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.300 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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