Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Posthumous Dignity Therapy Schedule of Questions to Brazilian Portuguese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dignity Therapy (DT) is a brief form of psychotherapy that helps people with life-threatening illnesses and their loved ones cope with emotional pain and demoralization. Unfortunately, not everyone has the opportunity to receive DT during their lifetime. Posthumous Dignity Therapy (PDT) was then devised to be administered to bereaved family members. However, PDT has not yet been validated or studied in the specific cultural and linguistic context of Portuguese-Brazilians. This study aims to fill this gap by validating PDT for the Portuguese (Brazilian) context. METHODS: Using Beaton's methodology, including the processes of translation, synthesis, back-translation, evaluation by an expert committee, and pre-testing, the PDT Schedule of Questions underwent validation and cultural adaptation. The research was conducted in a Palliative Care Unit at a tertiary cancer hospital in Brazil. RESULTS: The questionnaire was translated, back-translated, and evaluated by the panel of experts, obtaining a Content Validity Index of 0.97. During the pretest phase, it was observed that the participant's interview method needed to be changed from remote (telephone or videoconference) to in-person. Additionally, it was necessary to modify some terms related to death and dying, as they caused discomfort to the participants. As a result of this process, the PDT was modified, and adapted to the Brazilian cultural and linguistic reality. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: This validation study will be significant for future DT research from the caregivers' perspective and for projects aiming to implement this therapeutic modality in palliative care units, in addition to helping participants remember their loved ones better by providing a tangible legacy document that assists them emotionally and materially in coping with the grieving process.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".