Fear of cancer recurrence: a systematic literature review of self‐report measures
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior research has shown that many cancer survivors experience ongoing fears of cancer recurrence (FCR) and that this chronic uncertainty of health status during and after cancer treatment can be a significant psychological burden. The field of research on FCR is an emerging area of investigation in the cancer survivorship literature, and several standardised instruments for its assessment have been developed. AIMS: This review aims to identify all available FCR-specific questionnaires and subscales and critically appraise their properties. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken to identify instruments measuring FCR. Relevant studies were identified via Medline (1950-2010), CINAHL (1982-2010), PsycINFO (1967-2010) and AMED (1985-2010) databases, reference lists of articles and reviews, grey literature databases and consultation with experts in the field. The Medical Outcomes Trust criteria were used to examine the psychometric properties of the questionnaires. RESULTS: A total of 20 relevant multi-item measures were identified. The majority of instruments have demonstrated reliability and preliminary evidence of validity. Relatively few brief measures (2-10 items) were found to have comprehensive validation and reliability data available. Several valid and reliable longer measures (>10 items) are available. Three have developed short forms that may prove useful as screening tools. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis indicated that further refinement and validation of existing instruments is required. Valid and reliable instruments are needed for both research and clinical care.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it