What Have You Been Told? Awareness of Prognosis of Patients in an Italian Home Palliative Care Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In palliative care, investigating prognosis awareness is a milestone for effective and comprehensive patient intake care. The literature shows that over the past half-century, regarding prognoses, the data report less willingness to provide information, despite patients' wishes. Objective: To investigate the varying degrees of awareness of prognosis of patients and their caregivers admitted to an Italian Palliative Home Based Care Service. Design: A monocentric observational survey study with questionnaires created by the research team and completed by physicians, caregivers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) during the intake. The assessment of any statistically significant differences was evaluated through McNemar's test. Subjects: Forty patients (±75 years old, 60% females) with an estimated prognosis of more than 10 days, and for whom there was an opportunity to provide informed consent, who were intake at the Home Palliative Care Service of the Domus Salutis Clinic in Italy, from January 1 to June 30, 2022 were recruited. Results: In total, 52% of patients were fully aware of their prognosis at the time of intake, although 75% had asked to be informed about their prognosis. Before death, the total percentage of patients who were aware of their prognosis was 72. Twenty percent of patients were informed of their prognosis during the course of treatment. The total number of patients aware of prognosis, from the caregiver's perspective before death, was 28 (71%). The postmortem questionnaire revealed that the team had discussed prognoses with 86% of patients. Conclusion: Periodic re-evaluation of prognosis awareness during the course of care is essential, awareness increased significantly.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".