Development and Formative Evaluation of the Family-Based Dignity Therapy Protocol for Palliative Cancer Patients and Their Families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Palliative cancer patients and family members in China may experience difficulties in expressing their feelings, concerns, and needs to each other because of the death-taboo culture and the strong desire to protect each other from being exposed to emotional distress. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to develop a nurse-led psychotherapeutic intervention aiming to facilitate meaningful conversations between palliative cancer patients and their family members, named family-based dignity therapy (FBDT), and preliminarily explore the anticipated benefits and challenges of the implementation of FBDT. METHODS: A convergent parallel mixed-methods design was used. The FBDT was designed based on the dignity therapy protocol and additionally inspired by the Chinese tradition of "4 important things in life." Ten palliative cancer patients, 10 family members, and 13 oncology and hospice nurses were surveyed to evaluate the FBDT protocol both quantitatively and qualitatively. RESULTS: The FBDT interview guide was endorsed by most palliative cancer patients and family members (>75.0%), as well as oncology and hospice nurses (>90.0%). Potential perceived benefits and challenges of FBDT were proposed by participants. The FBDT protocol was modified according to feedback from participants to make it more suitable to use in clinical practice in China. CONCLUSION: The FBDT was perceived to be a potentially promising intervention to facilitate meaningful end-of-life conversations among palliative cancer patients and family members in China. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The FBDT might provide a means for nurses to promote potentially enhanced end-of-life communications for palliative cancer patients and their families. Further studies are needed to examine the feasibility, acceptability, and efficacy of FBDT to confirm this in China.
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 | 0.134 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".