Prognostic Acceptance and the Well-Being of Patients Receiving Palliative Care for Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To identify the impact of prognostic acceptance/nonacceptance on the physical, psychological, and existential well-being of patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Canadian multicenter prospective national survey was conducted of patients diagnosed with advanced cancer with an estimated survival duration of 6 months or less (n = 381) receiving palliative care services. RESULTS: Of the total number of participants, 74% reported accepting their situation and 8.6% reported accepting with "moderate" to "extreme" difficulty. More participants with acceptance difficulties than without acceptance difficulties met diagnostic criteria for a depressive or anxiety disorder (chi(2) = 8.67; P < .01). Nonacceptors were younger (t = 4.13; P < .000), had more than high school education (chi(2) = 4.69; P < .05), and had smaller social networks (t = 2.53; P < .05) than Acceptors. Of the Nonacceptors, 42% described their experience as one of "moderate" to "extreme" suffering compared with 24.1% of Acceptors (chi(2) = 5.28; P < .05). More than one third (37.5%) of Nonacceptors reported feeling hopeless compared with 8.6% who had no difficulty accepting (chi(2) = 24.76; P < .000). Qualitatively, participants described active and passive coping strategies that helped them accept what was happening to them, as well as barriers that made it difficult to come to terms with their current situation. CONCLUSION: The challenge of coming to terms with a terminal prognosis is a complex interplay between one's basic personality, the availability of social support, and one's spiritual and existential views on life. Nonacceptance appears to be highly associated with feelings of hopelessness, a sense of suffering, depression, and anxiety, along with difficulties in terms of social-relational concerns.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".