Identifying the palliative care needs of frail, older, housebound patients in the community: A cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The early introduction of palliative care can have a positive impact on the quality of life of patients suffering from life-limiting diseases. However, the palliative care needs of older, frail, housebound patients are still mostly unknown, as is the impact of frailty on the importance of these needs. Objectives To identify the palliative care needs of frail, older, housebound patients in the community. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional observational study. This study took place in a single primary care center and included patients who were ≥65 years old, housebound, followed by the Geriatric Community Unit of the Geneva University Hospitals. Results Seventy-one patients completed the study. Most patients were female (56.9%), and mean age (SD) was 81.1 (±7.9). The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale mean (SD) score was higher in frail patients as opposed to vulnerable patients for tiredness (p = 0.016), drowsiness (p = 0.0196), loss of appetite (p = 0.0124), and impaired feeling of well-being (p = 0.0132). There was no difference in spiritual well-being, measured by the spiritual scale subgroup of the Functional Assessment of the Chronic Illness Therapy–Spiritual Well-Being scale (FACIT-sp) between frail and vulnerable participants, although scores in both groups were low. Caregivers were mainly spouses (45%) and daughters (27.5%) with a mean (SD) age of 70.7 (±13.6). The overall carer–burden measured by the Mini-Zarit was low. Significance of results Older, frail, housebound patients have specific needs that differ from non-frail patients and should guide future palliative care provision. How and when palliative care should be provided to this population remains to be determined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".