Older Adults Living with Cancer: Supportive Care Needs and Utilization of Peer Support Services
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Cancer is primarily a disease of older adults with sixty percent of all incidences occurring in individuals 65 years and over. Coping with cancer may entail additional challenges for older adults due to co-morbidities, declining mobility, reduced social networks and ageism. To date, the majority of research examining supportive care needs has focused on younger women with breast cancer. Little attention has been paid to older adults’ experience with cancer, particularly with respect to psychosocial support. \nPURPOSE: The aims of the present studies were twofold: (1) to learn more about peer support services in Ontario, specifically: the type and location of available programs; extent of utilization by older adults; and factors that might facilitate or inhibit use by older adults; and (2) to gain a better understanding of the experiences and challenges facing older adults living with cancer, strategies and resources used to meet these challenges, unmet support related needs, as well as awareness of support services, principally peer support. METHODS: First, peer support services in Ontario were identified through an environmental scan. Subsequently, interviews were conducted with 24 key contacts from a purposeful sample (based on type and geographic location) of 30 of these groups. Next, surveys were administered to participants (n=220) and facilitators (n=39) from these groups to establish a profile of current peer support users and deliverers, and examine the extent to which older adults (age ≥ 65) utilized these services. Finally, a preliminary, in-depth, qualitative exploration from the perspective of older adults living with cancer was conducted through a focus group (n=6) and interviews with 20 older adults. \nRESULTS: The environmental scan yielded a total of 177 peer support cancer programs across Ontario; predominately group-based (93%). Most were located in urban centers. Few programs targeted colon cancer. In the 30 groups examined, breast and prostate cancer were the most common focus (60%). Group facilitators were primarily female (75%) and most had personally experienced cancer (77%). The male facilitators were older (p <.05) and most likely to lead the prostate groups. None of the programs systematically collected client information. Clients ranged in age from 25 to 91 years (mean = 64 ± 10.7). Many were long-term cancer survivors (average five years post diagnosis). Overall, less than half the clients were aged 65 or older. Clients over age 65 were predominately men (86%; p <.001) with prostate cancer. Almost 70% of program directors and over 90% of facilitators were unaware most individuals with cancer are over the age of 65. Interview participants were recruited primarily through the Canadian Cancer Society (CCS). Not surprisingly, 46% had participated in peer support. Older adults identified several challenges with respect to physical functioning, sexuality, emotional distress, and obtaining information. Participants utilized a variety of resources to meet informational and emotional challenges including, the Internet and the support of family and friends. Accessing routine follow-up care after the transition from ‘patient’ to ‘survivor’ was a significant unmet need. \nCONCLUSIONS: The findings support the premise that cancer peer support services may be under-utilized by older adults, particularly older women. The reasons for these findings remain unclear although ageism may be a factor. Due to the reliance on a convenience sample, qualitative findings that older adults were generally able to meet their supportive care needs cannot be generalized to all older adults living with cancer. Large organizations such as the CCS need to begin systematically collecting demographic and other information on clientele to enhance program planning and delivery. Further research studies on older adults living with cancer are needed to examine their supportive care needs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».