MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220915830 · doi:10.1080/07481187.2022.2051095

Spirituality in Brazilian family caregivers of patients with cancer from the end-of-life care to bereavement

2022· article· en· W4220915830 on OpenAlexaff
Andréa Carolina Benites, Érika Arantes de Oliveira‐Cardoso, Manoel Antônio dos Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueDeath Studies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsSpiritualitySuperordinate goalsExistentialismTransformative learningSocial connectednessPsychologyPalliative careEnd-of-life careInterpretative phenomenological analysisGriefPsychotherapistFamily caregiversMedicineQualitative researchDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyGerontologyNursingSociologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although spirituality can be a source of support during end-of-life and engage a transformative experience after loss, few studies report family members' spiritual and existential needs considering their experiences over time. We conducted a longitudinal interpretative phenomenological analysis from audio-recorded interviews of 10 family caregivers while providing end-of-life care for cancer patients and during bereavement. Participants' spirituality experiences were presented in three superordinate themes: connectedness with religious beliefs and the deceased; re-signifying relationships, life, and loss; suffering and the family caregiver's needs. Finding connection through relationships, greater existential and spiritual suffering post-loss were important issues involved in expressing their spirituality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeath StudiesSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207