A Hospice Intervention for Caregivers: Improving Home Hospice Management of End‐Of‐Life Symptoms (I‐ <scp>HoME</scp> ) Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: While home-based hospice care seeks to reduce suffering at the end of life (EoL), patients continue to experience a high symptom burden. High symptom burden contributes to adverse outcomes, including patient suffering, burdensome care transitions, and caregiver burden. Yet, most caregivers lack formal education in patient symptom management despite providing up to 65 h of care per week. Interventions that provide symptom support and education to caregivers could improve EoL outcomes for patients and caregivers. METHODS: We conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial (N = 80) in a hospice organization to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of the Improving Home Hospice Management of End-of-life Symptoms (I-HoME) intervention. This caregiver-focused intervention aims to reduce patient symptom burden through weekly tele-visits with a nurse practitioner and caregiver educational videos to provide symptom support and education. RESULTS: The mean age of caregivers (N = 80) was 60.3 (standard deviation ± 12.1); with a majority being women (79%) and children of the patient (67%). In the I-HoME group (n = 40), a total of 121 of a possible 145 tele-visits (83%) were completed. Over 96% of caregivers were either satisfied or very satisfied with the tele-visits. Eighty-three percent agreed or strongly agreed that it prepared them to manage symptoms better, while 88% agreed or strongly agreed that the intervention increased their confidence in managing symptoms. The average reduction in patient symptom burden, as measured by the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, for the intervention group who received all six visits was 6.6 points compared to 2.9 for the control group. CONCLUSIONS: The I-HoME intervention was feasible to implement in the home hospice setting and acceptable to caregivers and hospice staff. Future efficacy trials are needed to determine whether this caregiver-focused intervention, which provides symptom support and education, can measurably improve patient and caregiver outcomes in the home hospice setting.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".