PP04.001 About one-quarter of dutch older people knows palliative care can start long before the terminal phase: results of a survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Lack of public knowledge of palliative care may be a barrier to timely use of palliative care and hinder engagement in advance care planning (ACP). This study aimed to determine self-reported and actual knowledge of palliative care and explore factors that contribute to knowledge of palliative care among older people. Methods A cross-sectional study consisted of 1242 older persons (≥ 65 years; response 93.2%) from a representative sample of the Dutch population. Older persons were asked four statements about palliative care (true/false/don’t know). Descriptive statistics and logistic regression analyses were done. Results The majority of Dutch older people had heard of the term palliative care (90.1%), and 47.1% reported to know what palliative care means. Most older people knew that palliative care is not only for people with cancer (73.9%) nor only provided in a hospice facility (60.6%). A minority knew that palliative care can be provided alongside life-prolonging treatment (29.8%) and that palliative care is not only for people who have a few weeks left to live (23.5%). Higher education level (OR ranging from 1.34 to 4.67 for the four statements), personal experience with palliative care (ORs from 1.35 to 2.44), being female (ORs from 1.00 to 1.88), and higher income (ORs from 0.95 to 1.81) were positively associated with knowledge about palliative care, while increasing age (ORs from 0.51 to 0.68) was negatively associated. Conclusions Knowledge of palliative care is limited, stressing the need for population-wide interventions, such as information meetings. During such meetings, attention should especially be paid to timely utilization of palliative care. This might stimulate engagement in ACP and raise public knowledge of (im)possibilities of palliative care.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.165 | 0.026 |
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".