Applying Dignity Therapy to a person with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: To understand the effects of Dignity Therapy on the physical, existential, and psychosocial symptoms of aperson with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis.Method: This is a single case study exploratory, and descriptive employing a mixed method approach. In it, Dignity Therapywas applied to an individual diagnosed with Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, and its effectiveness was assessed using the following scales: the Patient Dignity Inventory, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Spiritual Well-being Scale, and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale.Results: The application of Dignity Therapy was assertive for the intended objectives, considering the reported improvement in the participant’s existential well-being, made possible by the evocation of significant memories that culminated in the creation of a legacy document for future generations. These improvements were also corroborated by lower scores on the assessment scales.Conclusion: The results of this case point to the positive effects of Dignity Therapy on physical, existential, and psychosocial symptoms, suggesting the feasibility of this intervention as an integral part of palliative care. Such an approach can help improve quality of life and give new meaning to the suffering inherent in the disease.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".