Perceptions of Death Among Patients with Advanced Cancer Receiving Early Palliative Care and Their Caregivers: Results from a Mixed-Method Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oncologists are often concerned that talking about death with patients may hinder their relationship. However, the views of death held by patients have not been thoroughly investigated. This study aimed to describe the perception of death among patients with advanced cancer receiving early palliative care (EPC) and their caregivers. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Qualitative and quantitative analyses were performed on 2 databases: (a) transcripts of open-ended questionnaires administered to 130 cancer patients receiving EPC with a mean age of 68.4 years and to 115 primary caregivers of patients on EPC with a mean age of 56.8; (b) texts collected from an Italian forum, containing instances of web-mediated interactions between patients and their caregivers. RESULTS: Quantitative analysis shows that: (a) patients and caregivers are not afraid of speaking about death; (b) patients and caregivers on EPC use the word "death" significantly more than patients on standard oncology care (SOC) and their caregivers (P < .0001). For both participants on EPC and SOC, the adjectives and verbs associated with the word "death" have positive connotations; however, these associations are significantly more frequent for participants on EPC (verbs, Ps < .0001; adjectives, Ps < .003). Qualitative analysis reveals that these positive connotations refer to an actual, positive experience of the end of life in the EPC group and a wish or a negated event in the SOC group. CONCLUSIONS: EPC interventions, along with proper physician-patient communication, may be associated with an increased acceptance of death in patients with advanced cancer and their caregivers.
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 | 0.026 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".