Perspectives of Adolescents and Young Adults, Caregivers, and Health Care Providers on Regional Cancer Care: Qualitative Study (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND Adolescents and young adults with cancer have distinct developmental and psychosocial needs that require care models bridging pediatric and adult oncology systems. While survival outcomes have improved, there is growing recognition of the need to strengthen coordinated care, psychosocial support, and survivorship services. In Ontario, regional and community-based cancer programs play a central role in delivering accessible care and are well-positioned to support adolescents and young adults closer to home. However, variation in infrastructure, workforce capacity, and system-level coordination influences how developmentally appropriate oncology care is implemented. Existing literature has focused on tertiary and specialty centers, highlighting the need to leverage and strengthen regional systems, providers, and community resources to support high-quality adolescent and young adult cancer care. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to explore how structural barriers and supports shape the experiences of adolescents and young adults with cancer, their caregivers, and health care providers (HCPs) in accessing and navigating regional cancer care in Ontario. METHODS An exploratory qualitative study was conducted between July 2024 and March 2025, guided by Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory and a social constructionist orientation. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 14 participants (adolescents and young adults, caregivers, and HCPs) in Southwestern Ontario. Participants were recruited through purposive sampling. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Trustworthiness and rigor were strengthened through reflexive team discussions and audit trail documentation. RESULTS A total of 2 adolescents and young adults, 6 caregivers, and 6 HCPs were interviewed. Youth were in their early 20s and represented different cancer diagnoses. Most caregivers (n=5) were mothers, and HCPs had 2-20 years of experience. Six key themes were generated: (1) structural gaps in coordinated care, (2) reliance on individual champions, (3) developmental and environmental misalignment, (4) barriers to youth engagement and autonomy, (5) gaps in psychosocial, palliative, and survivorship support, and (6) local system enablers. Participants described fragmented care poorly suited to adolescents’ and young adults’ needs. Care environments often defaulted to child- or adult-oriented models, limiting autonomy and engagement. Psychosocial, palliative, and survivorship supports were unevenly available, particularly during transitions off treatment. Despite these challenges, local satellite clinics and community organizations reduced travel burden, fostered continuity, and provided long-term emotional and financial support. CONCLUSIONS Adolescent and young adult cancer care in regional settings is delivered within evolving systems adapting to youth’s developmental and psychosocial needs. Our findings suggest that targeted investments in workforce development, coordinated communication structures, and age-appropriate care models can further enhance regional capacity to support adolescents and young adults across the cancer trajectory. By shifting from reliance on informal solutions toward more structured, team-based approaches, regional programs can build resilient, youth-responsive systems that promote high-quality, equitable adolescent and young adult cancer care. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-10.2196/76877
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 | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,009 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».