Supporting Family Members in Palliative Phases of Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This comparative and exploratory multicenter study explored the experiences of 2 groups of family members caring for relatives in palliative phases of cancer: caregivers practicing health care professionals (doctors/nurses) and caregivers who were not health care professionals. The ill family members of the 2 groups were also interviewed. Twenty-seven volunteer caregiving relatives (including 16 health professionals) and 18 cancer patients participated in psychologist-conducted semistructured interviews exploring psychological experiences of the support (including daily, personal, and medical care) and, for caregivers, of the interactions with medical teams. Interviews were recorded and transcribed for inductive thematic analysis. Caregiving relatives, irrespective of their profession, all reported developing closer bonds with their relative since the cancer diagnosis and being highly involved in the palliative care. They also all reported psychological stress with additional stress linked to health care professionals' acute knowledge of the disease and treatments often experienced as a burden. Whereas non-health care professional caregivers reported hope for favorable disease progression, health professional caregivers did not. Interactions with the health care team were generally described as satisfactory. A minority of health care professional caregivers reported difficulties when the health care team perceived their investment in the patient's care as negative. Patients' perceptions were consistent with caregiver perceptions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".