To what extent does meaning mediate adaptation to cancer? The relationship between physical suffering, meaning in life, and connection to others in adjustment to cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study builds on previous work that explored the lived experience of meaning in advanced cancer. The aims were to explore the associations of suffering (physical and existential distress) and coping (via social support) with psychological distress and global meaning using a battery of instruments among adults attending an Australian metropolitan cancer service (n=100). METHODS: The contribution of suffering and coping via social support to psychological distress and meaning were examined using a variety of statistical methods. Multiple regression analyses were conducted to further examine relative contributions to both psychological distress and global meaning. RESULTS: Physical and existential distress were found to be positively associated with psychological distress whereas high social support and personal meaning are related to lower levels of psychological distress. Social support was the strongest correlate of global meaning whereas high levels of existential distress were related to lower levels of global meaning. On the basis of this study, it is concluded that the factors related to suffering clearly promote psychological distress, and the reverse is true for global meaning for those living with cancer. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This study speaks to the clinical complexity of the dynamic experience of suffering and meaning in cancer. We need to better understand the impact of physical suffering and meaning in the lives of this population and to actively work toward the enhancement of social support and connection with others for this group. Optimal palliative and family-centered care blended with therapies that promote a sense of meaning of life lived appear crucial to ameliorate suffering.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".