Uncertainty in caregivers in association with symptom burden of terminally ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the level of uncertainty of the family caregiver (FC) of the terminally hospitalised person and its association with symptom burden and patient functionality. Materials and methods: Observational cross-sectional study, in which the prevalence of uncertainty in the FC of terminally ill hospitalised patients was identified using the uncertainty scale. In addition, the symptom burden was assessed using the Edmonton scale in terminally ill patients hospitalised in a highly complex health institution. Results: The sample included information from 69 CF and terminally ill hospitalised patients. 85.51% of caregivers had a medium level of uncertainty. A statistically significant lower level of uncertainty was observed in the CF, the greater the intensity of the patient's pain (p=0.04), as well as in nausea (p=0.0004), depression (p=0.03) and anxiety (p=0.025) according to symptom burden. Discussion: The experience of the caregiver of a terminally ill patient, reflected in the uncertainty of the patient's illness, is mainly related to the functional dependence of the patient, probably due to the impact that their lack of sufficiency can have on the daily routines of the family caregiver, which can completely alter the family dynamics and generate overload, stress, anxiety and communication disorders. Conclusion: The majority of FC of terminally ill patients are women of productive age, with a family burden, and with a medium-high level of uncertainty about the patient's illness. The uncertainty of the family caregiver is different according to the patient's symptoms.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".