Demoralization and death anxiety in advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The circumstances of advanced cancer can cause considerable psychological distress, including death anxiety and demoralization. Although these states of existential distress have a negative impact on the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer, they are rarely evaluated as outcomes or targets of interventions in this population. In an effort to improve understanding of existential distress, a structural model of relationships among death anxiety, demoralization, symptom burden, and social relatedness was tested in patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: A total of 307 patients with advanced cancer completed baseline measures including the Death and Dying Distress Scale, the Demoralization Scale, the modified Experiences in Close Relationships Scale, the Life Completion subscale of the Quality of Life Evaluation-Cancer scale, the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale, and Karnofsky Performance Status. A structural equation model of protective and risk factors for demoralization and death anxiety was tested. RESULTS: The final model had good fit (SRMR = 0.061; RMSEA = 0.077; CFI = 0.927; NNFI = 0.902) in which death anxiety was positively associated with demoralization (β = 0.71), and demoralization was positively associated with symptom burden (β = 0.31) and negatively associated with social relatedness (β = -0.74). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that demoralization and death anxiety are closely linked in patients with advanced cancer. The contribution of both symptom burden and low social relatedness to demoralization suggests that an integrated intervention addressing both physical and psychosocial disease factors may be most effective at alleviating such states of existential distress.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".