Quality of Life for Older Cancer Patients: Relation of Psychospiritual Distress to Meaning-Making During Dignity Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Nearly 500,000 older Americans die a cancer-related death annually. Best practices for seriously ill patients include palliative care that aids in promoting personal dignity. Dignity Therapy is an internationally recognized therapeutic intervention designed to enhance dignity for the seriously ill. Theoretically, Dignity Therapy provides opportunity for patients to make meaning by contextualizing their illness within their larger life story. The extent to which Dignity Therapy actually elicits meaning-making from patients, however, has not been tested. Aim: The current study examines (i) extent of patient meaning-making during Dignity Therapy, and (ii) whether baseline psychospiritual distress relates to subsequent meaning-making during Dignity Therapy. Design: Participants completed baseline self-report measures of psychospiritual distress (i.e., dignity-related distress, spiritual distress, quality of life), before participating in Dignity Therapy. Narrative analysis identified the extent of meaning-making during Dignity Therapy sessions. Participants: Twenty-five outpatients ( M age = 63, SD = 5.72) with late-stage cancer and moderate cancer-related symptoms were recruited. Results: Narrative analysis revealed all patients made meaning during Dignity Therapy but there was wide variation (i.e., 1—12 occurrences). Patients who made greater meaning were those who, at baseline, reported significantly higher psychospiritual distress, including greater dignity-related distress ( r = .46), greater spiritual distress ( r = .44), and lower quality of life ( r = -.56). Conclusion: Meaning-making was found to be a central component of Dignity Therapy. Particularly, patients experiencing greater distress in facing their illness use the Dignity Therapy session to express how they have made meaning in their lives.
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 | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".