Promoting Enhanced Patient and Family Caregiver Congruence on Lung Cancer Symptom Experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To test the effects of different perspective-taking instructional sets, gender, caregivers' personal histories with cancer, and caregiving relationship factors on family caregiver and patient perceptual agreement of symptom experiences of patients with lung cancer. DESIGN: Counterbalanced. SETTING: Thoracic oncology outpatient clinical setting in Canada. SAMPLE: 98 dyads consisting of patients with lung cancer and their family caregivers. METHODS: Data were collected on a one-time basis by employing an abbreviated version of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale targeting lack of energy and worrying. Caregivers were randomized to one of six counterbalanced conditions of perspective-taking instructions. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Caregiver discrepancy scores, instructional sets (i.e., neutral, self-report, and imagine-self and imagine-patient perspective-taking), order effects, gender, caregivers' personal history with cancer, and caregiving relationship factors. FINDINGS: No order effects were found for the instructional sets. Instructions to imagine the patient's perspective over imagining how the caregiver would feel if he or she had cancer were most effective in enhancing the caregiver's ability to estimate the patient's lack of energy and worrying. Gender had no significant effects. The amount of patient-caregiver communication had a positive impact on the accuracy of caregivers' perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: The patient-oriented instructions had a limited impact on enhancing patient-caregiver congruence on patient symptoms. This likely is related to the study's convenience sample of caregivers who appear to naturally engage in empathic processes of patient-oriented perspective-taking when they assessed and reported on patient symptom conditions. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Further exploratory work should identify interpersonal conditions that negatively hamper the effects of caregiver perspective-taking on their reasonable understanding of patient symptoms.
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".