A comparison of Dignity Therapy narratives among people with severe mental illness and people with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine Dignity Therapy (DT) narratives in patients with severe mental illness (SMI) and a control group of cancer patients. METHODS: 12 patients with SMI (schizophrenia, bipolar disorders, sever personality disorders) and 12 patients with non-advanced cancer individually participated to DT interviews. DT was tape-recorded, transcribed verbatim and shaped into a narrative through a preliminary editing process. A session was dedicated to the final editing process along with the participant, with a final written legacy (generativity document) provided to the participant. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis was used to qualitatively analyze the generativity documents. RESULTS: Patients with SMI and patients with cancer presented similar main narrative categories relative to dignity, such as "Meaning making", "Resources", "Legacy", "Dignity"; in addition, inpatients with SMI "Stigma" and inpatients with cancer "Injustice" emerged as separate categories. Patients in both groups strongly appreciated DT as an opportunity to reflect on their life story and legacy. CONCLUSIONS: The study showed that DT is a valuable intervention for people with SMI, grounded in a practical, person-centered approach. All patients found DT as an opportunity to describe their past and present, highlighting changes in the way they relate to themselves and others. These results can guide implementation of DT in mental health settings for people with SMI, as it is for people with cancer.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".