Spirituality and use of complementary therapies for cure in advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is frequently used by patients with advanced cancer, for a variety of reasons. We examined the use of CAM in this population, and associations of use for potential cure with spiritual faith and existential well-being. METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer on a palliative care unit completed a measure of spiritual well-being (existential well-being and faith), and a survey assessing complementary therapy use and reasons for such use. Information was also gathered on demographic data, previous cancer treatment, performance status, and symptom distress. Regression analyses assessed the association between the spirituality domains of existential well-being and faith, and the use of CAM for cure. RESULTS: Of 123 participants, 85% had used CAM, 42% with curative intent. More than 95% would consider future use of CAM, 48% for potential cure. Previous use for cure predicted current interest in using CAM for cure (p<0.0001). Spiritual faith was associated with previous (p<0.02) and interest in future use for cure (p<0.0001). Poor existential well-being was associated with interest in future use of CAM for cure (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Interest in considering CAM for cure was relatively high in this group of inpatients on a palliative care unit, and was associated with increased spiritual faith and decreased existential well-being. Understanding factors associated with seeking CAM for cure may help health-care professionals to support and educate patients with advanced cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".