The psychosocial experiences of older palliative patients while participating in a Living with Hope Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Several studies have reported the effectiveness of a variety of psychosocial interventions in increasing levels of hope in palliative care patients. The experience of palliative patients while participating in these interventions is unknown. Understanding these experiences would provide a rich understanding of how the interventions work to foster hope. The purpose of the present study was to describe the psychosocial processes that participants with advanced cancer receiving palliative care experienced when taking part in a Living with Hope Program (LWHP). METHOD: In the context of a study evaluating the LWHP, data were collected from 13 dyads (persons with advanced cancer and their caregivers) at two timepoints (one week apart). A thematic qualitative analysis of 52 open-ended audiotaped interviews was conducted that focused on the psychosocial processes that occurred during the LWHP. RESULTS: The average age of palliative participants was 67 (SD = 6.6) and of their family caregivers 61 years of age (SD = 13.9). A thematic analysis suggested that the participants experienced the following psychosocial processes while participating in the LWHP: (1) reminiscing, (2) leaving a legacy, (3) positive reappraisal, and (4) motivational processes. These processes are the mechanisms by which the LWHP fosters the positive outcomes of increasing hope and improving quality of life. As well, the finding of motivational processes suggested that the LWHP may also increase life satisfaction, which is an outcome of motivational processes. Significance of the results: The findings from our study underscore the importance of uncovering the psychosocial processes through which the LWHP works to foster hope. They will assist in making revisions to the intervention that will increase its effectiveness, as well as providing a better understanding of hope in persons with advanced cancer.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".