Loneliness, Death Perception, and Spiritual Well-Being in Adult Oncology Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Holistic nursing care requires taking into consideration the spiritual and emotional dimensions of the patient. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the relationships among loneliness, death perception, and spiritual well-being in adult oncology patients. METHODS: This cross-sectional, descriptive-correlational study was conducted between March 20, 2018, and September 20, 2018. A total of 347 oncology inpatients participated in this study. Data were collected using the UCLA Loneliness Scale (UCLA-LS), the Personal Meanings of Death Scale, and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-being Scale (FACIT-Sp). RESULTS: A significant negative relationship was found between UCLA-LS total scores and FACIT-Sp total scores (r = -0.217, P < .01). Positive significant relationships between FACIT-Sp total scores and the Afterlife (r = 0.425, P < .01), Motivation/Legacy (r = 0.468, P < .01), and Extinction (r = 0.337, P < .01) subdimension scores of the Personal Meanings of Death Scale were also found. Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Spiritual Well-being Scale total scores were affected by age (B = -0.158), having graduated from a university (B = -7.859), living in the city center (B = -5.607), current diagnosis (B = -0.416), surgical treatment (B = -5.291), and receiving chemotherapy (B = 5.304). The UCLA-LS scores were unrelated to the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the patients (P > .05). CONCLUSION: Oncology patients experience moderate levels of loneliness, which decrease as their spiritual well-being levels increase. Patients with higher levels of spiritual well-being were found to attribute more positive meanings to death. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Spiritual well-being, loneliness, and death perception should be periodically evaluated in oncology patients, and appropriate nursing interventions should be planned.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".