Communion supports dignity for older adults with serious cancer: Quantitative findings from dignity therapy intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Patient dignity is a key concern during end-of-life care. Dignity Therapy is a person-centered intervention that has been found to support patient dignity interviews focused on narrating patients' life stories and legacies. However, mechanisms that may affect utility of the Dignity Therapy have been little studied. In this study, we evaluate whether the extent to which patients are more communal in their interviews acts as a mechanism for increased patient dignity. METHODS: = 7.45 years, Range = 55-88 years; 66% women). Interviews followed core questions asking patients about their life story and legacy. We used content-coding to evaluate the level of communion narrated in each interview, and mediation analyses to determine whether communion affected dignity impact. RESULTS: Mediation analyses indicated that the extent to which patients narrated communion in their interview had a significant direct effect on post-test Dignity Impact. Communion partially mediated the effect of pre-test on post-test Dignity Impact. For both the life story and legacy segments of the session, narrating communion had a direct effect on post-test Dignity Impact. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Narrating communion serves as a mechanism for enhancing patient dignity during Dignity Therapy. Providers may consider explicitly guiding patients to engage in, elaborate on, communal narration to enhance therapeutic utility. In addition, encouraging patients with advanced illness to positively reflect on relationships in life may improve patient dignity outcomes in palliative and end-of-life care.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".