Supporting the Transformative Process: Experiences of Cancer Patients Receiving Integrative Care
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to describe the essential features of the transformative experience among people living with cancer who are seeking integrative care and to identify factors supporting this process. It is hoped that after establishing the nature and meaning of this change or shift, one will better understand what is most meaningful in terms of providing appropriate care and support to patients seeking integrative care. STUDY DESIGN: An interpretational, qualitative approach guided sampling, data collection, and analysis with 11 individuals. A purposeful sample was drawn from selected integrative care facilities according to sociodemographics and type of cancer. Due to the complexity of this subject, second interviews were conducted with 5 participants to enhance the richness and validity of the data. RESULTS: The experience of transformation is a dynamic 4-stage process in which participants learned about themselves and became more aware of who they are and how they relate to the world. Participants found that 4 dimensions of integrative medicine played a fundamental role in supporting this process. These dimensions include (1) having access to a range of appropriate therapies to support individual journeys, (2) care that focuses on one's overall well-being, (3) control over cancer management, and (4) developing healing relationships with care providers. CONCLUSION: Although practitioners may not be able to create transformative experiences for patients, they may be able to establish and maintain conditions that support this process.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it