The intentional pursuit of everyday life while dying: A longitudinal qualitative study of working-aged adults living with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: People living with advanced cancer experience functional decline and increasing difficulty participating in activities of daily living over their final year of life, consequently reducing quality of life. Palliative rehabilitation may serve to mitigate some of these challenges by optimising function. However, limited research and theory explore the rehabilitative process of adaptation amid increasing dependency, often experienced by people living with advanced cancer. AIM: To explore the lived experience of everyday life for working-aged adults living with advanced cancer, and how this changes over time. DESIGN: A longitudinal hermeneutic phenomenological approach was employed, using in-depth semi-structured interviews. Data was analysed using inductive thematic analysis, and findings mapped against the Model of Human Occupation and illness experience literature. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Purposively sampled working-aged adults (40-64 years) with advanced cancer were recruited by a rural home care team in Western Canada. RESULTS: Thirty-three in-depth interviews were conducted over 19 months with eight adults living with advanced cancer. Advanced cancer and other losses have a disruptive impact on daily life. Despite experiencing progressive functional decline, these adults intentionally sought to participate in valued everyday activities. Adaptation to ongoing deterioration occurred through engagement in daily life. CONCLUSIONS: Despite experiencing disruption to routines and daily life, people living with advanced cancer seek to continue doing what is important to them, albeit in a modified form. Adaptation to functional decline is an active, ongoing process and occurs through continued engagement in activities. Palliative rehabilitation can facilitate participation in everyday life.
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 | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".