Exploring the meaning of dignity at end of life for Chinese Canadians caregivers: A qualitative cross-cultural study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Preserving patient dignity is a fundamental value in palliative care and is associated with an increased sense of meaning at end of life. The empiric Dignity Model, developed by Chochinov et al. (2002), identifies physical and psychosocial issues impacting dignity and provides guidance for dignity conserving care. AIM: This study's objectives are to explore the generalizability of the empiric Dignity Model to Chinese Canadians an immigrant population influenced by both Western and Asian values. The study will explore how dignity is culturally mediated. DESIGN: Template analysis using NVivo was used to assess for themes and to explore new themes in focus group interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Three focus groups of thirty-one first generation Chinese Canadians were conducted in the community setting, in the metropolitan area of Greater Vancouver. RESULTS: The three thematic categories of the Dignity Model were broadly supported. Themes of Family connectedness and the Confucian virtue of filial piety (duty that children have towards their parents), were found to be strongly relevant for Chinese Canadians. Subjects' acculturation within Canada led to an evolution of perception of dignity as new ideas are accepted or rejected and blended with pre-existing values. CONCLUSION: To the author's knowledge this is the first study on the Dignity Model done in a Chinese Canadian population. The conceptualization of dignity for first generation Chinese Canadians is influenced by both Western and Asian culture. This study highlights the unique constructs of dignity for Chinese Canadians and areas to enhance dignity preserving care in a cross-cultural context.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".