MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404236652 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/noae165.1045

QOL-10. AN ASSESSMENT TOOL FOR MEASURING CAREGIVERS’ DEATH ANXIETY IN PRIMARY BRAIN TUMOR: A CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS

2024· article· en· W4404236652 on OpenAlexaff
Kelcie Willis, Samantha Mladen, Gary Rodin, Ashlee R. Loughan, Sarah Braun

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisDeath anxietyClinical psychologyAnxietyPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryStructural equation modelingStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND Caregivers of patients with primary brain tumor describe significant emotional distress regarding their loved one’s impending trajectory and eventual mortality—a construct known as death anxiety. Our team adapted a pre-existing, validated scale for patients with advanced cancer (the Death and Dying Distress Scale; DADDS) to measure this latent variable in caregivers of patients with primary brain tumors. Our adapted scale (DADDS-CG) demonstrated preliminarily strong internal consistency and construct validity. We now seek to confirm the factor structure, internal consistency, and convergent validity of the DADDS-CG in a second sample of neuro-oncology caregivers in accordance with best practices of measure development. METHODS Caregivers of those with primary brain tumors (N=221) completed an online battery of self-report questionnaires, including the 15-item Death and Dying Distress Scale-Caregiving (DADDS-CG), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). To verify the two-factor structure of the DADDS-CG, we used confirmatory factor analysis. Cronbach’s alpha measured internal consistency, Pearson correlations assessed convergent validity, and descriptive statistics determined the prevalence of death anxiety. RESULTS Caregivers (Mage=46.2) were primarily White (85.5%) female (72.4%) spouses (75.6%). The two-factor model demonstrated adequate fit (X2/df=4.24; CFI-.89; NFI=.87; RMSEA=.06), suggesting two correlated subscales of death anxiety: Finitude and Dying (r=.80). The DADDS-CG demonstrated strong internal consistency (a=.95) and was moderately correlated with the GAD-7 (r=.73) and PHQ-9 (r=.68), suggesting adequate convergent validity. Mean scores fell within the moderate range (M=40.5, SD=18.7), with 20.8%, 36.2%, and 43.0% of caregivers reporting low, moderate, and severe death anxiety, respectively. CONCLUSION The DADDS-CG is a valid and reliable assessment tool for measuring death anxiety in caregivers of those with primary brain tumors. Given the high prevalence of death anxiety, future investigations are needed to understand caregiver’s death anxiety throughout the disease trajectory and to inform intervention development for neuro-oncology caregivers.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-Oncology→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→