Non-somatic Suffering in Palliative Care: A Qualitative Study on Patients’ Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Suffering is intimately linked to the experience of illness, and its relief is a mandate of medicine. Advances in knowledge around terminal illness have enabled better management of the somatic dimension. Nevertheless, there is what can be called “non-somatic” suffering which in some cases may take precedence. Inspired by Paul Ricoeur's thinking on human suffering, our aim in this qualitative study was to better understand the experience of non-somatic suffering. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 patients. The results were qualitatively analyzed following a continuous comparative analysis approach inspired by grounded theory. Results: Three key themes synthesize the phenomenon: “the being enduring the suffering”, “the being whose agency is constrained”, and “the being in relationship with others.” The first describes what patients endure, the shock and fears associated with their own finitude, and the limits of what can be tolerated. The second refers to the experience of being restricted and of mourning the loss of their capacity to act. The last describes a residual suffering related to their interactions with others, that of loneliness and of abandoning their loved ones, two dimensions that persist even when they have accepted their own death. Conclusions: Non-somatic suffering can be multifarious, even when minimized by the patient. When evaluating suffering, we must keep in mind that patients can reach a “breaking point” that signals the state of unbearable suffering. In managing it, we probably need to make more room for family and friends, as well as a posture of caring based more on presence and listening.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".