The desire for death in Portuguese home-care palliative patients: Retrospective analysis of the prevalence and associated factors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".