Dying means suffocating: perceptions of people living with severe COPD facing the end of life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The purpose of this research was to describe the perceptions of people living with severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) with respect to the end of life. METHOD: For this descriptive exploratory qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted with six participants suffering from severe COPD hospitalized in the past year following an exacerbation episode. The data were analyzed using the method developed by Miles and Huberman (2003), which comprises three main steps: data reduction, data display, and conclusion drawing/verification. RESULTS: The analysis yielded four themes that reflect the perceptions of participants with respect to the end of life, namely: living and seeing oneself decline, living and preparing to die, dying of COPD means suffocating, and dying in hospital surrounded by family and friends. What emerges from the study is that persons living with severe COPD wish to die without suffocating, in hospital, surrounded by family and friends, all the while hoping to go on living. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to a more comprehensive understanding of the end-of-life experience. It shows the importance of accompanying these persons properly towards the end of life and at the moment of dying. The study proposes a series of avenues for future research and makes recommendations for practice.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".