The meaning of being in transition to end-of-life care for female partners of spouses with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Female partners of cancer patients are at high risk for psychological distress. However, the majority of studies have focused on measurement of female partners' psychological distress during diagnosis and early treatment. There is a gap in the literature with regard to qualitative studies that examine the experiences of female partners of spouses with cancer during the transition to end-of-life care. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the meaning of being in transition to end-of-life care among female partners of spouses with cancer. METHODS: An interpretive phenomenological approach based on Gadamer's (1960/1975) philosophy was used to gain a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of end-of-life transition. Eight female partners from two in-patient hospices and a community-based palliative care service were interviewed using a semistructured approach. RESULTS: Three major themes and associated subthemes were identified that outlined female partners' experiences. One major theme, Meaning of Our Lives, included the subthemes Our Relationship, Significance of His Life, and Searching for Understanding. In another theme, Dying with Cancer, partners undertook the Burden of Caring, experienced an Uncertain Path and were Looking for Hope. In the last theme, Glimpses of the Future, participants Faced Tomorrow and confirmed their Capacity to Survive. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The results centered on three major concepts: meaning making, anticipatory mourning, and hope. Although meaning making has been identified as a fundamental way in which bereaved individuals cope with loss, results of this study suggested that female partners made meaning of their situations before their spouses' deaths. Participants also spontaneously described aspects of anticipatory mourning, thus, validating a concept that has been widely accepted despite limited research. Another finding was that participants shouldered the responsibility of adjusting spouses' hopes in order to help them to cope. Implications for practice and research are drawn from these findings.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".