Cost considerations for implementing dignity therapy in palliative care: Insights and implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite the clinical use of dignity therapy (DT) to enhance end-of-life experiences and promote an increased sense of meaning and purpose, little is known about the cost in practice settings. The aim is to examine the costs of implementing DT, including transcriptions, editing of legacy document, and dignity-therapists' time for interviews/patient's validation. METHODS: Analysis of a prior six-site, randomized controlled trial with a stepped-wedge design and chaplains or nurses delivering the DT. RESULTS: The mean cost per transcript was $84.30 (SD = 24.0), and the mean time required for transcription was 52.3 minutes (SD = 14.7). Chaplain interviews were more expensive and longer than nurse interviews. The mean cost and time required for transcription varied across the study sites. The typical total cost for each DT protocol was $331-$356. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: DT implementation costs varied by provider type and study site. The study's findings will be useful for translating DT in clinical practice and future research.
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 | 0.028 | 0.131 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".