Psychotherapeutic Interventions at the End of Life: A Focus on Meaning and Spirituality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical and psychological discourse on end-of-life care has steadily shifted over the years from focusing primarily on symptom control and pain management to incorporating more person-centred approaches to patient care. Such approaches underscore the significance of spirituality and meaning making as important resources for coping with emotional and existential suffering as one nears death. Though existential themes are omnipresent in end-of-life care, little has been written about their foundations or import for palliative care practitioners and patients in need. In this article, we explore the existential foundations of meaning and spirituality in light of terminal illness and palliative care. We discuss existential themes in terms of patients' awareness of death and search for meaning and practitioners' promotion of personal agency and responsibility as patients face life-and-death issues. Viktor Frankl's existential logotherapy is discussed in light of emerging psychotherapeutic interventions. Meaning-centred group therapy is one such novel modality that has successfully integrated themes of meaning and spirituality into end-of-life care. We further explore spiritual and existential themes through this meaning-oriented approach that encourages dying patients to find meaning and purpose in living until their death. Reprinted with permission from Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 2004; 49:366–372; full text of article available online at http://ww1.cpa-apc.org:8080/Publications/Archives/CJP/2004/june/breitbart.pdf and http://ww1.cpa-apc.org:8080/Publications/Archives/CJP/2004/june/breitbart.asp)
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".