Optimizing geriatric palliative care in Egypt: Comprehensive patient and family perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In Egypt, palliative care for geriatric patients is understudied, necessitating exploration for service optimization. Amidst rising chronic illnesses and aging, understanding perspectives of geriatric patients and families is crucial for targeted improvements. This study aims to explore geriatric patients' and their families' perspectives on palliative care in Egypt, seeking opportunities to optimize service delivery for the elderly. METHODS: Employing a cross-sectional design with 110 geriatric patients and an equal number of family caregivers from the Damietta Oncology Institute and the pain treatment clinics for cancer patients at Zagazig University Hospital, the study focuses on a specialized pain clinic. Validated tools (Palliative Care Outcome Scale, Family Satisfaction with End-of-Life Care [FAMCARE] Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System [ESAS], Caregiver Strain Index [CSI]) assess quality of life, family satisfaction, symptom severity, and caregiver strain. RESULTS: Geriatric patients (mean age: 65.0 ± 8.1 years; 45.5% male, 55.5% female) have diverse diagnoses (e.g., breast cancer 22%). Palliative care outcomes reveal challenges: low emotional well-being (2.6 ± 0.0) and alarming overall quality of life (1.8 ± 0.0). Family dissatisfaction (FAMCARE) is pervasive (total mean score 2.6 ± 0.5). Symptom severity (ESAS) is high, and caregiver strain (CSI) is notable (8.5 ± 2.2). SIGNIFICANCE OF THE RESULTS: The findings underscore the significance of the challenges faced by geriatric patients and caregivers in palliative care. Patients confront considerable symptom burdens and emotional distress, while caregivers experience notable strain. Urgently needed are targeted interventions designed to enhance patient well-being, alleviate caregiver burden, and elevate satisfaction. The critical importance of implementing these interventions promptly is highlighted, as they are instrumental in improving the overall care experience for geriatric patients and their caregivers. Moreover, the results underscore the imperative of developing comprehensive support mechanisms to address the intricate dimensions of palliative care, ultimately contributing to a more compassionate and effective care continuum.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".