“It Made Me More Human”: Existential Journeys of Family Caregivers from Prognosis Notification Until after the Death of a Loved One
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: An essential component of palliative care (PC) is providing psychological and existential support to the family caregivers. However, there is scant research on the existential journeys of family caregivers throughout the disease trajectory and beyond. Objective: This study aimed to obtain a deep understanding of the existential journeys of family caregivers from prognosis notification until after the death. Setting/Participants: A purposive sample of 22 caregivers of terminally ill family members who had died was recruited at a PC bereavement program in Canada and participated to qualitative phenomenological interviews. Data Collection: Interpretative phenomenological analysis was used to analyze the data derived from in-depth interviews. Results: The participants' existential journeys can be described by three dynamic dimensions: (1) from avoidance to integration of death, (2) from meaninglessness to meaningfulness, and (3) from transformation to transmission. The findings highlight the importance to family caregivers of having opportunities to share their experiences as a way to progress on the existential journey. Conclusions: PC should extend beyond the death of the loved one and expand to include existential aspects of the caregiving 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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".