MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390330522 · doi:10.26565/2410-1249-2023-20-03

Dignity Therapy as a Method of Palliative Psychological Assistance

2023· article· en· W4390330522 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Oxana Bayer

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Counseling and Psychotherapy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityGenerativityFeelingPsychologyPersonhoodPsychotherapistPalliative careThematic analysisIntervention (counseling)Social psychologyNursingMedicineQualitative researchSociologyEpistemologyPsychiatrySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methodological and theoretical grounding of a brief psychological intervention, new for Ukraine, are presented ‒ of so-called dignity therapy created by a Canadian researcher Harvey M. Chochinov the aim of which is fostering the feeling of the personhood of patients, actualization of their feeling of dignity and, as a result, decreasing of sufferings and increasing the quality of their lives. The scope of requests and conditions where dignity therapy could be helpful is defined, palliative care and psychological support of the elderly in particular. The factor contents of the model of dignity around which the intervention is constructed is revealed: feelings around the illness, behavioural repertoire related to the feeling of dignity, and the social model of dignity. The stages of dignity therapy implementation (preparatory, the stage of interview, and the stage of creating Generativity Document), its eight components (setting, comprehension check, probing questions, exploration of one's life path, refocusing, encouraging for meaningful expressions, general processes of the therapy) as well as questions that a therapist asks a patient in order to start a foreseen process are listed and described. Approximate contents of Generativity Document which is a key material product of dignity therapy on the example of summarized results of thematic analysis in the relevant research from different countries is presented (the developed themes include “Family”, “Pleasure”, “Caring”, “A Sense of Accomplishment” and others). The description of the procedure of estimation of efficacy of dignity therapy is provided, in particular through the use of self-reports and with the inclusion of groups of experts. A brief outline of the demands for therapists who implement the intervention is defined (namely, the standardized training with standardized teaching materials, the work at standardized cases, providing supervisions and additional expert support). The importance of the attitude of a specialist towards realization of dignity therapy is stressed ‒ sensitive, self-aware as well as self-reflective.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.153
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological Counseling and PsychotherapySame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207