A Scoping Review on the Experience of Participating in Dignity Therapy for Adults at the End of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As the proportion of aging population is increasing, so is the need for palliative care services. The end of life is marked by suffering and currently it is not well addressed in palliative care. Dignity therapy (DT) is one of the most popular therapies aimed at reducing suffering at the end of life and yet the quantitative evidence supporting its effectiveness is mixed. Also, no study has looked extensively at the qualitative literature. Objective: To describe the experience of participating in DT for adults in end of life. Design: A scoping review was conducted on the experience of DT among adults at their end of life. We searched electronic databases between 2002 and 2020. Two reviewers independently screened, extracted, and coded the data. They were analyzed using a thematic framework approach. Results: Twelve articles were included in the final analysis and were published between 2010 and 2019. The articles originated from the United States (3), Canada (3), Poland (2), Australia (2), the United Kingdom (2), Italy (1), and Germany (1). Two main categories of themes emerged from our analysis: themes mentioned during the DT intervention and themes following the DT intervention. The primary themes found during the DT intervention are discussions relating to the end of life, reflection on life, and creating a life narrative. The themes found following the DT intervention are that it opened a reflection on the past, that this was a helpful intervention, and that it was difficult, but important. Conclusions: Few qualitative studies assessed the experience of participating in DT following the intervention. This gap in the literature could explain the difficulties we currently have in understanding the effects of DT. Future studies should aim to assess how the effects of DT are perceived by patients after the intervention.
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 | 0.023 | 0.097 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".