The Autonomy Experience of Patients in Palliative Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Western society places great value on the expression of autonomy. Beginning in childhood, individuals are encouraged to walk by themselves, express their ideas, make their own decisions, perform duties, and plan their own future. Human nature drives the person to achieve and to take responsibility for their actions. Consequently, identity and self-esteem may be affected when someone is forced to depend on others as a result of failing health. This study aims to describe the experience of autonomy from the viewpoint of persons in palliative care. It was based on the phenomenological approach outlined by Colaizzi. Data were collected using semistructured interviews. Their analysis made it possible to identify six essential elements of the autonomy experience shared by all participants: (1) affirmation of identity as a human being, (2) ability to act by oneself, (3) generation of positive impacts on well-being, (4) experience of difficult and sometimes painful feelings, (5) altered relationships, and (6) adoption of different attitudes with regard to the future. The research shows that while autonomy is associated with personal identity and being independent, it also indicates it is experienced, paradoxically, with others. Finally, despite efforts to support future planning, autonomy is above all experienced in the present moment.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".