Qualidade de vida de pacientes com câncer avançado na terapêutica paliativa e no cuidado paliativo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer in palliative therapy and in palliative care. Materials and Methods: Quantitative, observational, cross-sectional, and analytic study conducted in a teaching hospital in Paraná, Brazil, from January to June 2018, with 126 patients: 107 in palliative therapy; 19 in exclusive palliative care. The questionnaires for data collec-tion were: Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 15-Palliative, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care 14, and Edmonton Symptom Assessment System. The Spearman non-parametric coefficient test was used for the analysis. Results: The overall quality of life in palliative therapy and in palliative care was, respectively, 71.54/59.65; when correlating the total score of quality of life of the Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 15-Palliative with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care 14 (p = 0.001), and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (p = 0.001), significant difference of better quality of life was observed in the palliative therapy. Conclusion: Patients in palliative therapy have good overall quality of life, while the palliative care group reports regular quality of life. The symptoms were milder in the palliative therapy and more intense and with greater significance in palliative care; hence, knowing the compromise of quality of life will help professionals in planning interventions with transdisciplinary approach for patients and for their families.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".