Exploring the ethical decision-making experience of caregivers of end stage cancer patients in Iran: a phenomenological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ethical decision making is a complex issue because it strongly depends on the religion, beliefs, traditional laws and moral views of each society. The purpose of this study was to explore the experience of Iranian family caregivers of end stage cancer patients about ethical decision making. METHODS: This qualitative study is based on van Manen's method of hermeneutic phenomenology. In-depth interviews were carried out to collect data. Participants were 12 caregiver. Audiotapes were transcribed and analyzed for common themes that represented the participants' experiences. Trustworthiness of the findings was established using the Lincoln and Guba's criteria. RESULTS: Three themes reflected the essence of caregivers' lived experience including; fluctuating between hope and despair, wandering dilemma, and ethical decision making. Each of these themes consisted of several subthemes. CONCLUSION: The present study revealed that, the caregivers of terminally ill cancer patients need different information about prognosis and end of life decision making process. Our perception of how families negotiate ethical issues in their decision-making is still developing. Opportunities should be created to empowering caregivers to talk about their uncertainties and concerns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.030 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".