Death talk and relief of death-related distress in patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The circumstances of advanced cancer heighten the need for affected individuals to communicate mortality-related concerns, although there may be obstacles to such communication. Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully(CALM) is a supportive-expressive therapy designed to address such barriers and to facilitate communication of mortality-related concerns in patients and caregivers facing advanced disease. This study explores death-related distress in patients with advanced cancer and the perceived influence of CALM therapy on overcoming barriers to communication of this distress. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with a subset of patients with advanced cancer (n=17) participating in a CALM phase III trial at a large urban regional cancer centre. Interviews were transcribed, and qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Death-related distress was experienced in terms of three key themes: diffuse and overwhelming fear, fear of uncertainty and fear of suffering. The perceived barriers to communicating such distress were as follows: reluctance of loved ones to discuss mortality-related issues and the participants´ own reluctance to discuss death-related concerns to protect their loved ones or themselves from distress. CALM therapists were perceived to facilitate discussions on dying and death in sessions and to support patients´ communication of death-related distress with healthcare providers and loved ones. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with advanced cancer perceive barriers to effective communication of death distress to be related to their own reluctance, as well as reluctance of their loved ones to address such fears. CALM therapy may help patients with advanced cancer to overcome obstacles to communication and to alleviate death-related distress. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01506492.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".