Fear of Death, Mortality Communication, and Psychological Distress Among Secular and Religiously Observant Family Caregivers of Terminal Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous research suggests that caregivers and terminally ill patients face substantial difficulties discussing illness and death. Existing research, however, has focused primarily on the experience of patients. The current study compared responses as well as the relative strength of association between mortality comunication, fear of death, and psychological distress (i.e., depressive symptomatology, emotional exhaustion) among secular and religiously observant family caregivers of terminally ill cancer patients. A total of 236 participants were recruited over 18 months within the first year of caregiver bereavement. Retrospectively reported mortality communication was statistically greater among secular caregivers; in contrast, both fear of death and depressive symptoms were greater among the religiously observant. Path analyses subsequently revealed notable differences between groups. Among secular caregivers, a significant inverse relationship between mortality communication and the two indices of caregiver distress emerged. In contrast, the association between mortality communication and psychological distress among the religious was moderated by these caregivers' fear of death. The results of this study suggest that fear of death is a significant predictor of psychological distress among religiously observant caregivers of terminal cancer patients (i.e., fear of their own death as elicited by the caregiving role). Fostering morality communication between secular caregivers and patients would appear to be one means of reducing the likelihood of clinically significant psychological distress. This may be insufficient among religiously observant caregivers, however, for whom fear of death may first need to be redressed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".