MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313816474 · doi:10.1158/1538-7755.disp22-a032

Abstract A032: Dignity therapy effects by race: Chaplain and nurse implementation in pragmatic, multisite stepped-wedge randomized control trial

2023· article· en· W4313816474 on OpenAlexaff
Diana J. Wilkie, George Fitchett, Tasha M. Schoppee, Marvin O. Degado Guay, Joshua Hauser, Sheri Kittelson, Sean O’Mahony, Michael W. Rabow, Tammie E. Quest, Sheldon Solomon, Yingwei Yao, George Hadzo, Harvey Max Chochinov, Linda L. Emanuel

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityRandomized controlled trialMedicinePalliative careNursingFamily medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Aim: As a brief psychotherapy for individuals facing mortal threat, Dignity Therapy (DT) effects on spiritual outcomes are unknown, especially as an intervention to support cancer health equity for racial minority patients. Our study aim was to compare usual outpatient palliative care and such care along with nurse-led or chaplain-led DT groups for main effects on dignity impact and the interaction of DT with race. Methods: We conducted the 4-step, stepped-wedge randomized control trial at 4 NCI designated cancer centers and 2 academic cancer centers across the United States. Half of the sites were randomized to chaplain-led DT and half to nurse-led DT. Of the 645 recruited cancer patients (age ≥ 55 years) receiving outpatient palliative care, 579 (59% female, mean age 66.4±7.4 years, 78% White, 77% Christian religion, 62% stage 4 cancer) provided data for intent-to-treat analysis. Over 6 weeks, patients completed pretest/posttest measures including the Dignity Impact Scale (DIS, primary outcome) ranging from low impact of 7 to highest impact of 35. In step 1-3, study procedures were completed in person. In step 4 (during the COVID-19 pandemic), when all sites were providing the intervention, study procedures were completed via Zoom. We used multiple imputation and regression analysis adjusting for pretest DIS, study site, and study step. Results: Of the 579 patients, 317 were in the DT group and 262 in the usual care group. The vast majority of the sample was White (n=448) along with 103 Blacks, 5 Asians, 2 Pacific Islanders, 1 Native American, 13 other races (all minorities were combined as Other Race), and 7 were missing race data. At pretest, the mean DIS score was 24.3±4.3 in the DT group and 25.9±4.3 in the usual care group. Adjusting for pretest DIS scores, study site, and study step, the chaplain-led (β=1.7, p=.02) and nurse-led (β=2.1, p=.005) groups reported significantly higher posttest DIS scores than the usual care groups. Adjusting for age, gender, race, education, and income, the effect on DIS scores remained significant for both DT groups. We then examined the interaction between race and DT with the entire sample and observed that the interaction was not significant (p=.73) and the sizes of DT effects were similar for White (β=1.9, p=.005) and the Other Race (β=1.6, p=.055) patients. Conclusions: Whether led by chaplains or nurses, DT was effective in improving dignity impact for older adult outpatient palliative care patients with cancer. DT, a patient-centered approach, has promise as an intervention to improve health equity in support of dignity for racial minorities. This rigorous trial of DT is a landmark step in gero-oncology palliative care and spiritual health services research focused on cancer health equity. Citation Format: Diana J. Wilkie, George Fitchett, Tasha M. Schoppee, Marvin O. Degado Guay, Joshua Hauser, Sheri M. Kittelson, Sean O-Mahony, Michael W. Rabow, Tammie E. Quest, Sheldon Solomon, Yingwei Yao, George Hadzo, Harvey Max Chochinov, Linda L. Emanuel. Dignity therapy effects by race: Chaplain and nurse implementation in pragmatic, multisite stepped-wedge randomized control trial [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 15th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2022 Sep 16-19; Philadelphia, PA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr A032.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.924

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & PreventionSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207