Effect of Supportive Nursing Care on Symptom Intensity and Quality of Life of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Patients undergoing Transarterial Chemoembolization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is recognized as a highly malignanttumor and a major contributor to the cancer-related disease burden in many regions of theworld with a modest survival benefit of current treatment. HCC patients are vulnerable todisease and treatment-related symptoms that may negatively affect overall QOL. Aim: Thisstudy aimed to evaluate the effect of supportive nursing care on symptom intensity andquality of life of hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing transarterialchemoembolization. Design: Quasi-experimental research design was employed to attainthe aim of the research. This study was carried out at ElmahallaHepatology Hospital, in theinpatient department and outpatient clinics, Elmahalla al-Kubra. A purposive sample of 60adult hepatocellular carcinoma patients of both sexes, undergoing TACE therapy wererecruited for the current study. They were assigned randomly into study and control groups.Tools: Three instruments were utilized; Patient's data sheet, Edmonton SymptomAssessment Scale (ESAS), and Functional Assessment of Cancer TherapyQuestionnaire.Results: There were statistically significant differences between the study and controlgroups concerning domains and total score of FACT-Hep., ESAS items and total score ofESAS, two weeks post-implementation of the supportive nursing care and at follow-up.Conclusion: supportive nursing care had a positive effect on decreasing symptom intensityand improving QOL of hepatocellular carcinoma patients undergoing transarterialchemoembolization . Recommendations: supportive nursing care should be initiated forHCC patients undergoing transarterial chemoembolization. Provide training programs fornurses regarding supportive nursing care of HCC patients undergoing transarterialchemoembolization.
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) | 0.001 | 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".