Effect of a Palliative nursing interventions on Symptoms Intensity among Patients with Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People with advanced cancer often experience physical symptoms that depend on the specific type of cancer a person has and where it has spread. Purpose: To assess the effect of a palliative nursing interventions on symptoms intensity among patients with advanced cancer. Design: A quasi-experimental research design was utilized. Setting: The study was carried out at the Oncology Department of Menoufia University Hospital at Menoufia governorate. Sample: A purposive sample of one hundred and seven adult patients with advanced cancer was selected. Instruments: Two instruments were used. Instrument one: structured interview questionnaire. Instrument two: Edmonton symptom assessment system. Results: All symptoms intensity related to cancer were reduced on posttest and follow up tests than pretest such as pain 3.81±3.72, 2.64±2.92 Vs 4.48±4.29. Conclusion: The study concluded that a palliative nursing intervention had a positive effect on reducing symptoms intensity among advanced cancer patients. Recommendation: A palliative nursing intervention should form an important component and should be included routinely in the management of patients with advanced cancer besides conventional therapy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".