MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6906656160 · doi:10.17863/cam.58020

The desire for death in Portuguese home-care palliative patients: Retrospective analysis of the prevalence and associated factors.

2020· article· en· W6906656160 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueApollo (University of Cambridge) · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative and Oncologic Care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortugueseFeelingConfidence intervalPalliative careRetrospective cohort studyMarital statusDeath anxietyMultivariate analysisPlace of death

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Desire for death (DfD) is a complex and multifactorial dimension of end-of-life experience. We aimed to evaluate the prevalence of DfD and its associations, arising within the setting of a tertiary home-based palliative care (PC) unit. METHOD: Retrospective analysis of all DfD entries registered in our anonymized database from October 2018 to April 2020. RESULTS: Of the 163 patients anonymously registered in our database, 122 met entry criteria; 52% were male, the average age was 69 years old; 85% had malignancies, with a mean performance status (PPS) of 56%. The prevalence of DfD was 20%. No statistical differences were observed between patients with and without DfD regarding sex, age, marital status, religion, social support, prior PC or psychological follow-up, type of diagnosis, presence of advanced directives/living will, time since diagnosis and PC team's follow-up time. Statistically significant associations were found between higher PPS scores and DfD (OR = 0.96; 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.93-0.99]); Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale scores for drowsiness (OR = 4.05; 95% CI [1.42-11.57]), shortness of breath (OR = 3.35; 95% CI [1.09-10.31]), well-being (OR = 7.64; 95% CI [1.63-35.81]). DfD was associated with being depressed (OR = 19.24; 95% CI [3.09-+inf]); feeling anxious (OR = 11.11; 95% CI [2.51-49.29]); HADS anxiety subscale ≥11 (OR = 25.0; 95% CI [2.10-298.29]); will-to-live (OR = 39.53; 95% CI [4.85-321.96]). Patients feeling a burden were more likely to desire death (OR = 14.67; 95% CI [1.85-116.17]), as well as those who were not adapted to the disease (OR = 4.08; 95% CI [1.30-12.84]). In multivariate regression analyses predicting DfD, three independent factors emerged: higher PPS scores were associated with no DfD (aOR = 0.95; 95% CI [0.91-0.99]), while the sense of being a burden (aOR = 12.82; 95% CI [1.31-125.16]) and worse well-being (aOR = 7.72; 95% CI [1.26-47.38]) predicted DfD. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Prevalence of DfD was 20% and consistent with previous Portuguese evidence on DfD in PC inpatients. Both physical and psychosocial factors contribute to a stronger DfD.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApollo (University of Cambridge)Same topicPalliative and Oncologic CareFrench-language works237,207