MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981050621 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2007.0002

Dignity Therapy: Family Member Perspectives

2007· article· en· W1981050621 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface HospitalUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare ManitobaResearch Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityMedicineFamily memberMEDLINEFamily medicinePsychotherapistPsychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: Dignity Therapy is a novel therapeutic intervention designed to address psychosocial and existential distress among the terminally ill. This brief, individualized approach to end-of-life care invites patients to discuss issues that are most important to them and to articulate things they would most want remembered as death draws near. These discussions and recollections are recorded, transcribed, and edited into a generativity document, which are usually given to family or loved ones. While the marked benefits of Dignity Therapy on patients' psychosocial and existential distress have been reported elsewhere, this paper presents data on bereft family members' perspectives regarding the impact of dignity therapy on patients and themselves. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Sixty family members of deceased terminally ill patients who previously took part in Dignity Therapy completed a questionnaire to elicit feedback about the impact of Dignity Therapy on both the dying patient and themselves. RESULTS: Ninety-five percent of participants reported that Dignity Therapy helped the patient; 78% reported that it heightened the patient's sense of dignity; 72% reported that it heightened the patient's sense of purpose; 65% reported that it helped the patient prepare for death; 65% reported that it was as important as any other aspect of the patient's care; and 43% reported that Dignity Therapy reduced the patient's suffering. Regarding family members, 78% reported that the generativity document helped them during their time of grief; 77% reported that the document would continue to be a source of comfort for their families and themselves; and 95% reported they would recommend Dignity Therapy to other patients of family members confronting a terminal illness. CONCLUSION: Family members endorse Dignity Therapy as a therapeutic intervention that moderates their bereavement experiences and lessens suffering and distress in terminally ill relatives.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.147
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it