Patient and Family Caregiver Decision Making in the Context of Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A basic tenet of palliative care is to maintain an individual's control over the dying process. However, when decline occurs quickly, as may be the case in advanced cancer, transition of responsibility for illness management to a family caregiver may become necessary when care takes place in the home. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand the decision-making process that occurs between a dying individual and his or her family caregiver. METHODS: Participants in this grounded theory study were selected by purposive and theoretical sampling methods. Data were collected and analyzed using a constant comparison approach. RESULTS: The core category covering captured the inordinate efforts taken by informal caregivers to ensure that their family member would be able to die in the manner of his or her choosing. The basic social process, dancing on the stairs, chronicled the families' decision-making process as they navigated through this delicate and precarious end stage of life. CONCLUSIONS: Dancing on the stairs required a close relationship between 2 people who were willing to remain engaged with each other, despite the difficulties they faced. This decision-making process may be applicable to other health care transitions in people's lives that need to be managed with another person. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Palliative care education for nurses in all care health settings may ease transitions for end-stage patients. Health promotion initiatives designed to educate the lay public about advance directives and end-stage illness management in a home setting may help to prepare family caregivers for their future responsibilities.
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 | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".