Holding Secrets While Living With Life-Threatening Illness: Normalizing Patients’ Decisions to Reveal or Conceal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communicating openly and directly about illness comes easily for some patients, whereas for others fear of disclosure keeps them silent. In this article, we discuss findings about the role of keeping secrets regarding health and illness. These findings were part of a larger project on how people with life-threatening illnesses re-story their lives. A narrative approach drawing on Frank's dialogical narrative analysis and Riesman's inductive approach was used. Interviews were conducted with 32 participants from three populations: chronic kidney disease, HIV/AIDS, and cancer. Findings include case exemplars which suggest keeping secrets is a social practice that acts along continuums of connecting-isolating, protecting-harming, and empowering-imprisoning. Keeping secrets about illness is a normative practice that is negotiated with each encounter. Findings call health-care providers to rethink the role of secrets for patients by considering patient privilege, a person's right to take the lead in revealing or concealing their health and illness experience.
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 | 0.016 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".