Necesidades de cuidado paliativo del paciente con falla cardiaca: un estudio mixto
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The presence of physical, psychosocial, and spiritual signs and symptoms should be identified and managed through the palliative care that health care teams and professionals pro vide. Objective: To identify the palliative care needs of people with heart failure, their caregivers, and the multidisciplinary team of a heart failure unit. Materials and Methods: A mixed-method study with a sequential transformative design (DITRAS, for its acronym in Spanish) was conducted. It began with a quantitative phase in which the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), the Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp-12), and the Barthel Index were used. The qualitative phase was conducted with three focus groups involving seven patients, eight caregivers, and twelve health professionals from the multidisciplinary team. Elizabeth Lenz's Theory of Unpleasant Symptoms was used as a guideline for this study. Results: Physiological (edema, fatigue, and dyspnea) and psychological (attitude towards life and enjoyment of hobbies) palliative care needs and situational factors (caregiver dependence and support networks) were identified and could be understood through Lenz's theory. Conclusions: Palliative care needs in patients with heart failure are presented under a framework of symptoms that patients, caregivers, and the health care team perceive. Comprehensive approaches are required to improve symptom experience.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it