MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154739332 · doi:10.1089/jpm.2020.0776

Association between Spirituality, Religiosity, Spiritual Pain, Symptom Distress, and Quality of Life among Latin American Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Multicenter Study

2021· article· en· W3154739332 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Palliative Medicine · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReligion, Spirituality, and Psychology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsReligiositySpiritualityMedicineWorryCoping (psychology)Palliative careQuality of life (healthcare)DistressInterquartile rangeSpiritual careClinical psychologyPsychiatryGerontologyAnxietyInternal medicinePsychologyAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: The purpose of this multicenter study was to characterize the association between spirituality, religiosity, spiritual pain, symptom distress, coping, and quality of life (QOL) among Latin American advanced cancer patients. Methods: Three hundred twenty-five advanced cancer patients from palliative care clinics in Chile, Guatemala, and the United States completed validated assessments: Faith, Importance and Influence, Community, and Address (FICA) (spirituality/religiosity), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-Financial/Spiritual (ESAS-FS), including spiritual pain, Penn State Worry Questionnaire-Abbreviated (PSWQ-A), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Brief-coping strategies (COPE) and Brief religious coping (RCOPE) and RCOPE, respectively, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-Being, Expanded version (FACIT-Sp-Ex). Results: Median age: 58 years (range: 19–85); 60% female; and 62% Catholic and 30% Christian, but not Catholic. Three hundred fifteen patients (97%) considered themselves spiritual and 89% religious, with median intensities of 7 (interquartile range [IQR]: 5–10) and 7 (5–9), respectively (0–10 scale, 10 = “very much”). Median importance of spirituality/religiosity was 10 (IQR: 8–10). The frequency and associations between spirituality/religiosity and various items were as follows: helps to cope with illness (98%; r = 0.66303; p < 0.0001), positive effect on physical symptoms (81%; r = 0.42067; p < 0.0001), and emotional symptoms (84%; r = 0.16577; p < 0.0001). One hundred ninety-five patients (60%) reported that their spiritual/religious needs had not been supported by the medical team. Spiritual pain was reported in 162/311 patients (52%), with median intensity of 6 (IQR: 5–8). Spiritual pain was associated with pain (p = 0.0225), depression (p < 0.0001), anxiety (p < 0.0001), worry (p < 0.001), behavioral disengagement (p = 0.0148), FACIT-Sp-Ex score (p = 0.0002), and negative RCOPE (p < 0.0001). Significance of Results: Spirituality and religiosity are frequent, intense, and rarely addressed among Latin American patients. Spirituality/religiosity was associated with positive COPE and higher QOL. Spiritual pain was also frequent and associated with physical and psychosocial distress. These patients need increased spiritual/religious support.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.385
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it