MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401210541 · doi:10.3390/healthcare12151529

Intensity of Symptoms and Perception of Quality of Life on Admission to Palliative Care: Reality of a Portuguese Team

2024· article· en· W4401210541 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Florbela Gonçalves, Margarida Gaudêncio, Ivo Paiva, Francisca Rêgo, Rui Nunes

Bibliographic record

VenueHealthcare · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade do Porto
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careReferralHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleQuality of life (healthcare)AnxietyAmbulatory careInpatient careFamily medicineOutpatient clinicEmergency medicineHealth careNursingPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Palliative care (PC) corresponds to an approach that enhances the quality of life for patients facing life-threatening diseases, such as cancer, as well as for their families. There are various models for providing palliative care. Early referral to PC of patients with advanced cancer has a significant positive impact on their quality of life. However, the criteria for early referral still remain controversial. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate patients' symptomatic intensity and perception of quality of life on admission to a PC unit and to analyze these two variables according to different models of approach (outpatient and inpatient care). METHODS: A cross-sectional, descriptive, and correlational study was conducted with a sample of 60 patients sequentially admitted to a PC unit from palliative outpatient consultations or other inpatient services in a tertiary hospital dedicated to oncology care. The evaluation protocol included a sociodemographic and medical questionnaire, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), and the Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) completed by patients within the first 24 h after admission. RESULTS: = 28; 46.7%) were transferred from other hospital services (inpatient care). In the outpatient care group, higher scores for fatigue and dyspnea were observed. Conversely, in the inpatient care group, higher scores were observed for pain, depression, and anxiety. There were significant differences between the two groups regarding the POS dimensions of meaning of life, self-feelings, and lost time. In the inpatient group, there was a longer time between diagnosis and referral to PC; however, it was also in the inpatient group that there was less time between PC referral and first PC evaluation, between PC referral and PC unit admission, and between PC referral and death. There were no significant correlations between referral times and ESAS/POS scores in the inpatient and outpatient groups. CONCLUSIONS: The patients admitted to the Palliative Care Unit presented a high symptom burden and changes in the perception of quality of life. However, there are no statistically significant differences between one model of approach in relation to the other. It was found that poorer symptom control and quality of life were associated with a shorter referral time for PC, because this was only initiated after curative care was suspended, particularly in our institutional context. Early referrals to the PC team are essential not only to relieve symptom-related distress but also to improve treatment outcomes and quality of life for people with 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.213
GPT teacher head0.496
Teacher spread0.283 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealthcareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207