Coping strategies, emotional outcomes and spiritual quality of life in palliative care nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is in accompanying the dying that palliative care nurses say they find meaning in their work. To further explore this phenomenon, consideration of coping strategies is proposed. The main objective of this correlational study was to describe the association between coping strategies (using a revised version of the COPE scale (Carver et al, 1999)), emotional outcomes (distress and vigour; profile of mood states (POMS)), and spiritual quality of life (using the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - Spiritual Wellbeing Scale (FACIT-sp)). A sample of 120 nurses providing palliative care in acute care hospitals and the community in Quebec was included. Positive reinterpretation (beta=.27; p<.01) and turning to religion (beta=.33; p<.001), two strategies related to meaning-making coping and disengagement (beta=-.19; p<.05), were the best predictors, accounting for 22% of variance of spiritual quality of life. These findings are consistent with recent studies and highlight the importance of meaning-making strategies in psychological adjustment to bereavement for palliative care nurses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".