Cancer Patients’ Satisfaction with In-Home Palliative Care and Its Impact on Disease Symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to determine whether the satisfaction of cancer patients with in-home palliative care is associated with the impact of disease symptoms and with self-perceived quality of life. This was a cross-sectional descriptive study, conducted in the primary health care sector in six clinical management units, where 72 patients were recruited over a period of six months. The severity of symptoms was determined by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). Quality of life was evaluated with the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3) questionnaire, and patients’ satisfaction with the care received was evaluated by the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8). The patients’ satisfaction with the health care received was represented by an average score of 6, on a scale of 1–10; thus, there is room for improvement in patient satisfaction. Moreover, it was found that more intense symptoms and lower quality of life are associated with lower satisfaction with health care received (p = 0.001). Similarly, when symptoms are more severe, the quality of life is lower (p < 0.001). The identification of fatigue, reduced well-being, pain, drowsiness, and depression as the symptoms experienced with the highest intensity by our patients provides valuable information for health care providers in developing individualized symptom management plans for patients with advanced cancer.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".