Comfort Level in Caregivers of Palliative Care Patients and Affecting Factors: What Should We Know?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Caregivers are an important source of support for patients in palliative care. Comfort is an important concept in nursing care for both patients and their families, and nurses aim to increase comfort. The aim of the study was to determine the comfort level and influencing factors in caregivers of palliative care patients. The research sample consisted of 102 caregivers related to palliative care patients. The data were obtained with an Individual Information Form, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the End of Life Comfort Scale (Caregiver/Family). The study was conducted in the palliative care clinic of Aksaray University Training and Research Hospital between October 2018 and April 2019. There was a significant relationship between the total comfort score of the caregivers and the patient's performance status, the caregivers' age, their economic situation, the length of the caregiving period and receiving help in care (social support) ( p < 0.05). Providing comfort is an important function and challenge for holistic nursing care, as comfort is a lifelong need in health and disease. Caregivers in the risk group should be aware of this issue and necessary precautions should be taken.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".