Dimensions of Posttraumatic Growth in Patients With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic growth (PTG) refers to positive outcomes after exposure to stressful events. Previous studies suggest cross-cultural differences in the nature and amount of PTG. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore different dimensions of PTG in Iranian patients with cancer. METHODS: A mixed method study with convergent parallel design was applied to clarify and determine dimensions of PTG. Using the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI), confirmatory factor analysis was used to quantitatively identify dimensions of PTG in 402 patients with cancer. Simultaneously, phenomenological methodology (in-depth interview with 12 patients) was used to describe and interpret the lived experiences of cancer patients in the qualitative part of the study. RESULTS: Five dimensions of PTGI were confirmed from the original PTGI. Qualitatively, new dimensions of PTG emerged including "inner peace and other positive personal attributes," "finding meaning of life," "being a role model," and "performing health promoting behaviors." CONCLUSION: Results of the study indicated that PTG is a 5-dimensional concept with a broad range of subthemes for Iranian cancer patients and that the PTGI did not reflect all growth dimensions in Iranian cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Awareness of PTG dimensions can enable nurses to guide their use as coping strategies and provide context for positive changes in patients to promote quality 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 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) | 0.000 | 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".