Dignity therapy: A feasibility study of elders in long-term care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of dignity therapy for the frail elderly. METHOD: Participants were recruited from personal care units contained within a large rehabilitation and long-term care facility in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Two groups of participants were identified; residents who were cognitively able to directly take part in dignity therapy, and residents who, because of cognitive impairment, required that family member(s) take part in dignity therapy on their behalf. Qualitative and quantitative methods were applied in determining responses to dignity therapy from direct participants, proxy participants, and healthcare providers (HCPs). RESULTS: Twelve cognitively intact residents completed dignity therapy; 11 cognitively impaired residents were represented in the study by way of family member proxies. The majority of cognitively intact residents found dignity therapy to be helpful; the majority of proxy participants indicated that dignity therapy would be helpful to them and their families. In both groups, HCPs reported the benefits of dignity therapy in terms of changing the way they perceived the resident, teaching them things about the resident they did not previously know; the vast majority indicated that they would recommend it for other residents and their families. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study introduces evidence that dignity therapy has a role to play among the frail elderly. It also suggests that whether residents take part directly or by way of family proxies, the acquired benefits--and the effects on healthcare staff--make this area one meriting further study.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".