Necesidades de cuidado paliativo del paciente con falla cardiaca: un estudio mixto
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".