Religious Coping is Associated with the Quality of Life of Patients with Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For patients confronting a life-threatening illness such as advanced cancer, religious coping can be an important factor influencing their quality of life (QOL). OBJECTIVE: The study's main purpose was to examine the association between religious coping and QOL among 170 patients with advanced cancer. Both positive religious coping (e.g., benevolent religious appraisals) and negative religious coping (e.g., anger at God) and multiple dimensions of QOL (physical, physical symptom, psychological, existential, and support) were studied. DESIGN: Structured interviews were conducted with 170 patients recruited as part of an ongoing multi-institutional longitudinal evaluation of the prevalence of mental illness and patterns of mental health service utilization in advanced cancer patients and their primary informal caregivers. MEASUREMENTS: Patients completed measures of QOL (McGill QOL questionnaire), religious coping (Brief Measure of Religious Coping [RCOPE] and Multidimensional Measure of Religion/ Spirituality), self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale), and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Linear regression analyses revealed that after controlling for sociodemographic variables, lifetime history of depression and self-efficacy, greater use of positive religious coping was associated with better overall QOL as well as higher scores on the existential and support QOL dimensions. Greater use of positive religious coping was also related to more physical symptoms. In contrast, greater use of negative religious coping was related to poorer overall QOL and lower scores on the existential and psychological QOL dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Findings show that religious coping plays an important role for the QOL of patients and the types of religious coping strategies used are related to better or poorer QOL.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".