Learning from dying patients during their final days: life reflections gleaned from dignity therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dignity therapy is a novel therapeutic approach designed to decrease suffering, enhance quality of life and bolster a sense of dignity for patients approaching death. The benefits of dignity therapy were previously documented in a sample of 100 terminally ill patients. One of the products of dignity therapy is a transcript of the edited therapy session(s). In this qualitative study, 50 of the 100 (17 from Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and 33 from Perth, Australia) dignity therapy transcripts were randomly drawn, and independently coded and analysed by three investigators using a grounded theory approach. The transcripts revealed that dignity therapy serves to provide a safe, therapeutic environment for patients to review the most meaningful aspects of their lives in such a manner that their core values become apparent. The most common values expressed by the patients included 'Family', 'Pleasure', 'Caring', 'A Sense of Accomplishment', 'True Friendship', and 'Rich Experience'. Exemplars of each of these values illustrate the pervasive, defining role of values in our lives. The findings are discussed in terms of values theory, the role of dignity therapy, and consideration of values clarification in clinicians' efforts to enhance the dignity of terminally ill patients.
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 | 0.013 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".