A Pilot Study on the effectiveness of Anticipatory Grief Therapy for Elderly Facing the end of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This pilot study evaluates the benefits of anticipatory grief therapy (AGT) for day hospice patients and long-term care (LTC) residents with cancer and non-malignant chronic diseases. Twenty-six elderly people (69.2 percent female; average age 81.8 years) participated in experiential, expressive activities and discussions during AGT. The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Hong Kong version and the 15-item Geriatrics Depression Scale (Chinese version) were administered immediately before and after AGT, and at a four-week follow-up. Focus groups were held to collect qualitative feedback. Significant post-AGT improvements were found in physical (Z = -2.12, p < 0.05), psychological (Z = -2.22, p < 0.05), and total quality of life measures (Z = -2.66, p < 0.01), and in depression levels (Z = -2.49, p < 0.05). Emergent qualitative themes included grief and existential concerns, pros and cons of reminiscence, reflection and affirmation of meaning through expressive art, perceived benefits of AGT, and comments and suggestions for improving AGT in the future. We conclude that AGT delivered in both day hospice and LTC settings could be acceptable, feasible, and useful for elderly people facing the end of life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".