(098) IMPACT OF PRE-TREATMENT COUNSELLING ON DECISIONAL REGRET OF PROSTATE CANCER SURVIVORS: CROSS-SECTIONAL ANALYSIS OF PATIENT REPORTED EXPERIENCE FOLLOWING DIAGNOSIS OR TREATMENT
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Prostate cancer (PCa) impacts patient lives beyond oncological concerns alone. PCa survivorship includes the mental, physical, sexual, emotional, and financial effects patients endure from time of diagnosis, through treatment, and beyond. For some, this includes decision regret (DR). We aim to determine survivor experiences and understanding from a functional perspective throughout survivorship. Objective Our objective was to describe the local experiences and perspectives of PCa survivors regarding their functional outcomes at both the pre and post treatment level. Additionally, we sought to investigate the relationship between patients’ understanding of sexual and urinary side effects of treatment as well as modality of care delivery (ie virtual or in person) and development of treatment DR. Methods This is a cross-sectional survey of survivors. Our survey was circulated to all members of the Manitoba Prostate Cancer Support Group. Topics included erectile dysfunction (ED), penile shortening, urinary incontinence, and patient understanding throughout their care. Survey items included binary and Likert scale questions regarding patient understanding and treatment impact, as well as an open answered question asking how survivorship care may be improved. Responses were used identify predictors of DR. Results 514 patients received our survey with a response rate of 23.7% (n = 122). The average age of diagnosis and treatment were 65.2 and 65.9 respectively. Most common treatments included 63.9% radical prostatectomy (RP), 54.1% radiotherapy (RT), and 36.1% androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). 71.9% reported sexual health to be very or somewhat important, but 27.9% reported no pre-treatment discussion of potential ED. 14.9% reported lacking understanding of treatment impact on erections. 76.9% reported no counselling on penile shortening and 95.0% reported no counselling on climacturia, prior to treatment. 27.3% reported no pre-treatment discussion of urinary incontinence and 11.5% reported lacking understanding of treatment impact on urination. Predictors of DR included treatment with RP, and low pre-treatment understanding of potential ED and urinary incontinence. Common open answer responses included desire for more information regarding support groups, treatment side effects, and management of such. Conclusions PCa survivors are at high risk of DR. Virtual care does not seem to impact DR. However, the degree of pre-treatment understanding of treatment options and their functional impact does. Survivors are motivated to learn about their condition, requesting more information on treatments, side effects, and local support groups. Apart from PCa diagnosis and management, it is equally as important to discuss functional aspects. Disclosure No.
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 | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».