The meaning of self-reported death anxiety in advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Death anxiety is important but understudied in palliative care. New self-report measurements have been developed, but their interpretation and clinical utility may not be evident. AIM: To inform our understanding of death anxiety in patients with advanced cancer by exploring the relationship between this self-reported symptom and its clinical presentation. DESIGN: Participants were part of a psychotherapy trial in advanced cancer. First therapy session transcripts were analyzed using interpretive description in patients reporting low, moderate, and high death anxiety on the Death and Dying Distress Scale (DADDS). SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: A total of 16 participants (10 women and 6 men) with advanced or metastatic cancer were sampled from the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, Canada. Six participants reported low death anxiety scores (Death and Dying Distress Scale: 0-19), five moderate (Death and Dying Distress Scale: 20-50), and five high (Death and Dying Distress Scale: 51-75). RESULTS: The low death anxiety group exhibited psychological readiness for death, or contrastingly, non-reflectiveness about death. The moderate group recognized the imminence of mortality, which impacted treatment decisions and future plans. Prior experience with death was discussed as raising the salience of mortality. The high group felt dominated by powerful emotions and could not make sense of their situation. Their distress was exacerbated by substantial relational concerns. CONCLUSION: Self-reported death anxiety is affected by the awareness and ability to reflect on mortality. Death and Dying Distress Scale scores may facilitate exploration of this symptom as part of a clinical assessment and may serve to guide treatment approaches. Greater attention to death anxiety is consistent with and recommended by contemporary approaches to palliative care.
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 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".