{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022641509433962263, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0022641509433962265, 'mean_word_length': 4.946188340807175, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Authors' reply to Chaturvedi, Khaddar, and Bhat et al.

Our original article[1] published on quality of life and the needs of Indian advanced cancer patients receiving palliative care has received very interesting reviews and comments including an editorial on the topic.[2] We thank Dr Chaturvedi who has rightly indicated the need for quality of life distribution of patients into poor, satisfactory, and good categories.[3] In addition, we would rather state that there is a specific item in the reported tool expressing patient’s satisfaction with their general physicians (GPs) in the tool. The availability of palliative care physicians is grossly lacking in India. So, the present care of advanced cancer patients is by a variable group of physicians and nurses, as the GP system does not exist for palliative care in our country. As stated earlier, we agree with the view of doctors facing challenges and ethical dilemmas in providing palliative care in Indian settings. This correlates with the outcome of our study for needs and satisfaction for the palliative care. We agree with the fact that a tool focusing on specific needs of the Indian population would better depict the needs and problems. However, no validated tools for our Indian population have been made, and this needs future research in this context.