MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362710126 · doi:10.1590/0034-7167-2022-0007

Spiritual well-being, symptoms and performance of patients under palliative care

2023· article· en· W4362710126 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bárbara Vitória Mendes, Suzana Cristina Teixeira Donato, Thaina Lúcio da Silva, Ramon Moraes Penha, Paula Jaman-Mewes, Marina de Goés Salvetti

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Enfermagem · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsSadnessAnxietyDepression (economics)Palliative careHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleMedicineClinical psychologyDescriptive statisticsSpiritualityPsychologyPsychiatryNursingAlternative medicineAnger

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: to assess the relationship between spiritual well-being, symptoms and performance of patients under palliative care. METHODS: this is a descriptive correlational study, conducted with 135 patients seen in palliative care outpatient clinics. Karnofsky Performance Status Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, Spirituality Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale were used. Data were submitted to descriptive statistical analysis and Spearman's correlation. RESULTS: among participants, 68.2% were cancer patients. The most prevalent symptoms were changes in well-being (65.2%), anxiety (63.7%), sadness (63%) and fatigue (63%). Sadness, dyspnea, sleepiness, anxiety and depression presented weak to moderate correlation with spiritual well-being. Symptom overload showed weak negative correlation with performance. CONCLUSIONS: symptom intensification was correlated with worsening in spiritual well-being perception. The reduction in performance was related to increased number of symptoms, especially depression and anxiety.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de EnfermagemSame topicReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyFrench-language works237,207