A preliminary study to develop an intervention to facilitate communication between couples in advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial interventions directed to couples where one has advanced cancer can reduce distress, enhance communication, and provide an opportunity for relational growth. The present study aimed to develop an intervention to facilitate communication about living with advanced cancer using the Patient Dignity Inventory (PDI) as the focus of a clinical interview with couples toward the end of life. METHOD: Couples were recruited from oncology and palliative care services at a Sydney hospital. After the PDI was developed and manualized as an intervention for couples, the PDI-Couple Interview (PDI-CI) was delivered by a clinical psychologist and comprised the following: (1) the patient completed the PDI; (2) the patient's identified partner completed the PDI about how they thought the patient was feeling; and (3) the clinician reviewed the results with the couple, summarizing areas of concurrence and discordance and facilitating discussion. RESULTS: Some 34 couples were referred, of which 12 consented, 9 of whom completed the clinical interview. Reported benefits included enabling couples to express their concerns together, identifying differences in understanding, and giving "permission to speak" with each other. The focus of the interview around the PDI provided a structure that was particularly acceptable for men. Most couples confirmed that they were "on the same page," and where differences were identified, it provided a forum for discussion and a mutual understanding of the challenges in managing advanced cancer within a supportive context. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Participant couples' experiences of the PDI-CI provide valuable insight into the benefits of this intervention. This preliminary study indicates that the intervention is a relatively simple means of enhancing closer communication and connection between couples where one has advanced cancer and may be an important adjunct in helping prepare couples for the challenges inherent toward the end of life. Further investigation of feasibility with a larger sample is recommended.
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".