Measuring double awareness in patients with advanced cancer: A preliminary scale development study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Individuals with advanced cancer face the challenge of living meaningfully while also preparing for end of life. The ability to sustain this duality, called "double awareness," may reflect optimal psychological adaptation, but no psychometric scale exists to measure this construct. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to develop a novel scale to measure double awareness in patients living with advanced cancer. METHODS: Guided by best practices for scale development, this study addresses the first three of nine steps in instrument development, including domain clarification and item generation, establishment of content validity of the items, and pre-testing of the items with patients. RESULTS: Instrument development resulted in a 41-item measure with two dimensions titled "life engagement" and "death contemplation." Items retained in the measure displayed face validity and were found to be both acceptable by patients and relevant to their lived experience. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The results of this scale development study will allow for full validation of the measure and future use in clinical and research settings. This novel measure of double awareness will have clinical utility and relevance in a variety of settings where patients with advanced cancer are treated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".