Symptom Burden and Quality of Life in Inpatient Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective palliative care requires a comprehensive assessment of symptoms to improve quality of life. This study evaluated the clinical utility of the Polish version of the Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS-POL) in an inpatient setting. One hundred patients (68 oncological, 32 non-oncological) completed IPOS-POL at admission (T1) and after seven days (T2) between July 2022 and February 2023. While total IPOS scores remained stable (p = 0.3603), psychosocial distress increased significantly (p = 0.0217). Staff tended to underestimate drowsiness and psychosocial distress compared with patient self-reports. Female patients reported higher distress (p = 0.0374), and bedridden patients experienced more pain (p = 0.0146). Oncological patients reported greater pain (p = 0.0189), whereas non-oncological patients more frequently experienced breathlessness (p = 0.0297). These findings emphasize discrepancies in symptom perception between patients and staff and underline the importance of tailored interventions based on gender and functional status. Enhanced psychosocial support should be a priority in inpatient palliative care.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".