The quality of death and dying of patients with advanced cancer in hospice care in Uganda and Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Minimal information is available about the quality of dying and death in Uganda and Kenya, which are African leaders in palliative care. We investigated the quality of dying and death in patients with advanced cancer who had received hospice care in Uganda or Kenya. Methods Observational study with bereaved caregivers of decedents (Uganda: n = 202; Kenya: n = 127) with advanced cancer who had received care from participating hospices in Uganda or Kenya. Participants completed the Quality of Dying and Death questionnaire and a measure of family satisfaction with cancer care (FAMCARE). Results Quality of Dying and Death Preparation and Connectedness subscales were most frequently rated as good to almost perfect for patients in both countries (45.5% to 81.9%), while Symptom Control and Transcendence subscales were most frequently rated as intermediate (42.6% to 60.4%). However, 35.4% to 67.7% of caregivers rated overall quality of dying and overall quality of death as terrible to poor. Ugandan caregivers reported lower Preparation, Connectedness, and Transcendence ( p < .001). Controlling for covariates, overall quality of dying was associated with better Symptom Control in both countries ( p < .001) and Transcendence in Uganda ( p = .010); overall quality of death, with greater Transcendence in Uganda ( p = .004); and family satisfaction with care, with better Preparation in Uganda ( p = .004). Significance of results Findings indicate strengths in spiritual and social domains of the quality of dying and death in patients who received hospice care in Uganda and Kenya, but better symptom control is needed to improve this outcome in these countries.
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) | 0.001 | 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".