Effect of hospice care on quality of life and negative emotion of core family members of patients with advanced liver cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the effect of hospice care on the quality of life of patients with advanced liver cancer and the negative emotion of core family members. METHODS: Altogether 166 patients with advanced liver cancer were randomly divided into the study group (n=83, treated with hospice care) and the control group (n=83, treated with routine care). The quality of life, pain degree, subjective well being, anxiety, depression and other negative emotions of core family members before and after intervention and their satisfaction with nursing were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: After intervention, the five-dimensional health scale for cancer patients (EQ-5D) scores of patients in both groups were significantly higher than those before intervention, and the scores in the study group was higher than that in the control group (P<0.05). After the intervention, the scores of hamilton anxiety scale (HAMA) and hamilton depression scale (HAMD) of the core family members of the two groups were significantly lower than those before the intervention, and those of the study group were lower than those of the control group (P<0.05). VAS scores of patients in both groups decreased after intervention, those in the study group were lower than in the control group (P<0.05). The memorial university of newfoundland scale of happiness (MUNSH) scores of patients in both groups increased, and those in the study group were higher than those in the control group (all P<0.05). The core family members in the study group were more satisfied with nursing than those in the control group (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The hospice nursing can obviously relieve the pain degree of patients with advanced liver cancer, improve their subjective well-being and quality of life before they died, and can also improve the negative emotions such as anxiety and depression of core family members.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".