Lived Experiences of Canadian Women with Metastatic Breast Cancer in Preparation for Their Death: A Qualitative Study.: Part II-Enabling and Inhibiting Factors; the Paradox of Death Preparation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study examined the essence of lived experiences of a sample of women with metastatic breast cancer in preparing themselves for their own death, with the goal of informing health provider interventions that support an acceptance of and preparation for death. METHODS: A phenomenological qualitative approach was used. Five women with metastatic breast cancer were interviewed on two occasions. Themes were analyzed, described, and validated, until saturation was met. Qualitative outcomes of the thematic analysis related to the enabling and inhibiting factors involved in preparing for one's own death. RESULTS: Factors that enabled and inhibited death preparation tasks in these women included: personal past death experiences; the availability of time and a place to think, learn, and work on death preparation activities; a chance to connect with others in similar situations; and personal and cultural attitudes towards death. Gaps and unmet needs within the health care system were identified. Finally, the paradoxical nature of various aspects of death preparation was highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Death preparation can be accomplished through enhancing supportive care from health care professionals, with beneficial outcomes for patients and families. Nurses should be conscious of the paradoxical nature of death preparation, and help women to confront and manage these.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".