'The experience of spirituality in family caregivers of adult and elderly cancer patients receiving palliative care: A meta‐synthesis'
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Spirituality is a multidimensional aspect of human experience. In the context of palliative care, it is an individual resource that can be used to cope with illness and to assign new meanings to suffering. Qualitative studies that aim to investigate the experience of spirituality and the needs of family caregivers in this context are rare. OBJECTIVE: This meta-synthesis aimed to synthesise qualitative studies on the experience of spirituality in family caregivers of adult and elderly cancer patients receiving palliative care. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in six databases, and 14 studies were included in this meta-synthesis. RESULTS: The results are presented as a thematic synthesis divided into two analytical themes: (1) The interweaving of spirituality with end-of-life care and (2) The dimensions of suffering and spirituality in the dying process of the loved one. Each analytical theme is explained by two descriptive themes. The results showed that family caregivers express their spirituality in a multidimensional way, giving meaning to the care provided and reassessing the meanings of their lives and their suffering. CONCLUSION: Investigating the suffering and spiritual needs of family members in this context may be of value to inform comprehensive and multi-professional psychosocial care.
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 | 0.020 | 0.064 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".