Hope in Palliative Care: From Narcissism to Self-Transcendence in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The concept of hope in palliative care is an important and neglected area of research. Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a progressive degenerative motor neuron disease, offers an excellent opportunity to study this construct as the illness is virtually always fatal. Our research explored the meaning of hope in individuals with ALS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixteen patients (13 males and 3 females; mean age, 54) were interviewed during routine clinic visits to the Forbes Norris MDA/ALS Research Center at California Pacific Medical Center, San Francisco. The Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) Scale and the ALS Functional Rating Scale-Revised (ALSFRS-R) and a Hope Scale were administered. Themes of hope were identified and categorized. RESULTS: Hope categories included: (1) hope for a cure, (2) social support, (3) search for information, (4) spiritual beliefs, (5) limiting the impact, (6) adapting to changing capacities, (7) living in the moment, and (8) self-transcendence. The relationship between hope and the FVC value and individual as well as overall ALSFRS-R ratings were examined, and none were significant. DISCUSSION: Individuals varied in their capacity to cope with their illness unrelated to their physical ability. Themes ranged from a primary focus on the self to one of heightened concern for others, on continuum from narcissism to altruism. Respondents cited using a number of categories of hope (mean=5). CONCLUSION: Patients draw upon a variety of mechanisms to sustain hope when facing chronic disease, including hope for a cure, support from others, seeking information, spiritual beliefs, limiting the impact, adapting to changing capacities, living in the moment, and transcending the self. The palliative care team can play an important role by promoting discussions regarding hopefulness and its many forms in individuals with ALS.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".