Effect of dignity therapy on meaning in life scores of cancer patients in palliative care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Dignity Therapy (DT) helps reframe and give meaning to the illness process of the terminally ill individual. This study aims to evaluate the effect of DT on meaning in life scores and, additionally, to assess how much DT can alleviate physical and emotional symptoms in cancer patients undergoing palliative care. METHODS: This was a before-and-after clinical trial, involving the recruitment of 30 patients hospitalized in a palliative care unit, who filled out the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Meaning in Life Scale (MiLS) both before and after the implementation of DT. RESULTS: Of the 40 patients invited to participate in the study, DT was completed by 30 (75%) participants: 22 (73%) women and 8 (27%) men. Eighteen (60%) patients died during hospitalization, while 12 (40%) were discharged. When analyzing the factors correlated with the MiLS scores, a positive association was identified between the emotional and physical domains of the ESAS, and a negative association with the total ESAS score, spiritual ESAS score, male gender, higher educational level, and a cancer diagnosis duration (>6 years). SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: DT contributed to clinically relevant improvement, albeit not statistically significant, observed in emotional and spiritual well-being, as well as in the meaning of life. This underscores the importance of considering DT for palliative care patients nearing death.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".