Patients' and caregivers' needs in palliative care from the perspective of home care providers: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aim: Palliative care is an approach designed to enhance the quality of life and alleviate suffering associated with life-threatening illnesses. It should also be included in Home Care Services. This study aimed to identify the needs of patients in palliative care and their caregivers from the perspective of Home Care Service providers. Methods & Materials: This qualitative research study was conducted with a multidisciplinary team of providers under the Home Care Service program in the interior of São Paulo state, Brazil. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed using the Content Analysis method. Results: Three categories emerged from the provider's narratives: insufficient knowledge about palliative care, the needs of patients in palliative care, and the needs of caregivers of patients in palliative care. Additionally, nine subcategories were identified: palliative care as end-of-life care, palliative care as an opportunity to provide comfort measures, lack of palliative care training for the multidisciplinary team, pain management, nutrition, emotional support, and psychological care, presence of family members, psychological support, and assistance in care management. Conclusion: This study identified the needs of patients in palliative care and their caregivers from the perspective of Home Care staff. The primary needs of patients, as identified by the staff, encompassed both physical and psychosocial support, including the presence of family members. For these patients’ caregivers, staff emphasized the importance of psychological support and assistance in managing care. The study highlights the importance of continuous education in the home palliative care setting that recognizes the needs of both patients and caregivers.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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".