End-of-Life Care Preferences of Patients with Advanced Urological Malignancies: An Explorative Survey Study at a Tertiary Referral Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many people want to die at home, but it is often not possible because they do not share their wishes with family members. This study was conducted to find out the extent to which patients with advanced urological malignancies had wishes regarding their final stage of life, made arrangements accordingly, and communicated their wishes to relatives and health care professionals. Methods: We conducted a survey among advanced urological tumor patients during their clinic visit at a German university hospital using a 31-item questionnaire. Inclusion criteria were metastatic or irresectable prostate cancer, urothelial carcinoma, or renal cell carcinoma. Results: In total, 88 patients (76 male, 12 female) completed the questionnaire, and 62 of those respondents (70%) had received their tumor diagnosis within the past 5 years. Symptoms were reported by 80%, and 18% described five or more symptoms. The majority (88%) stated that they had thought about their preferred place of death but 58% had not informed anyone about it. The preference for a hospice as the place of death correlated statistically significantly with the absence of a domestic partnership (p = 0.001) or marriage (p < 0.001) and with a high number of symptoms (≥5; p = 0.009). However, 73% had not talked with their urological oncologist about care options in case their health deteriorated though 36% of those were interested in having a conversation about it. Conclusions: Our results showed that 9 out of 10 patients reflected on their preferred place of death but only a few discussed it with anyone. Based on this finding, physicians and healthcare staff should initiate discussions about early care planning so that patients in incurable situations can express their wishes regarding their preferred place of death.
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) | 0.002 | 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".