Dignity Impact as a Primary Outcome Measure for Dignity Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Feasibility of dignity therapy (DT) is well established in palliative care. Evidence of its efficacy, however, has been inconsistent and may stem from DT's primary effects differing from the outcomes measured in previous studies. We proposed that DT effects were in the spiritual domain and created a new outcome measure, Dignity Impact Scale (DIS), from items previously used in a large randomized controlled trial (RCT). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this secondary analysis study was to examine properties of a new measure of dignity impact. DESIGN: Using the DIS, we conducted reanalysis of posttest data from a large 3-arm, multi-site RCT study. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Participants were receiving hospice/palliative care (n = 326, 50.6% female, mean age = 65.1 years, 89.3% white, all with a terminal illness with 6 months or less life expectancy). They had been randomized to standard palliative care (n = 111), client-centered care (n = 107), or DT (n = 108). MEASUREMENT: The 7-item DIS was derived from selected items in a posttest DT Patient Feedback Questionnaire. The DIS had strong internal consistency (α = 0.85). RESULTS: The DT group mean DIS score (21.4 ± 5.0) was significantly higher than the usual care group mean score (17.7 ± 5.5; t = 5.2, df = 216, P < .001) and a client-centered intervention group mean score (17.9 ± 4.9; t = 5.2, df = 213, P < .001). CONCLUSION: We found that, compared to both other groups, patients who received DT reported significantly higher DIS ratings, which is consistent with the DT focus on meaning-making, preparation for death, and life completion tasks. We propose that the DIS be used as the primary outcome measure in evaluating the effects of DT.
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 | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".