A New Horizon in Life: Experiences of Patients Receiving Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The treatment quality of diseases can affect the patient's experience. Due to its different complications among cancer patients, the experience of chemotherapy is unique. The present study was conducted to explore the lived experience among cancer patients who had received chemotherapy. METHODS: The study was conducted by a qualitative approach and a phenomenological method. In so doing, 12 cancer patients who had received chemotherapy were purposefully selected were interviewed using an in-depth method. After the required data were collected, they were analyzed by Tanner, Allen, Diekelmann method. RESULTS: Analysis of the collected data indicated that the experience of chemotherapy appeared as "a new horizon in life" for the patients. Secondary themes of the new horizon in life included rebirth, understanding of life values, dependence, and need. CONCLUSION: According to the results of the study, it was concluded that in addition to taking into providing mental-spiritual support and reducing the complications of the treatment, nurses in chemotherapy wards should pay attention to the experiences of the patients receiving chemotherapy and enhance hope and positive attitude among them.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".