Cancer care employees' perceptions of research: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis is based on 32 semi-structured phenomenological interviews conducted at a large Canadian ambulatory cancer centre serving 2.3 million people in Ontario. The primary objective of this program of study was to explore cancer care employees' perceptions of a Quality of Work-Life (QWL) Project where they were the subjects of research and their perceptions of clinical research where patients were the subjects of research. Three secondary objectives were to explore: (a) perceptions of the participatory approach to research from the perspective of employees on the steering committee of the QWL Project; (b) perceptions of the QWL Survey from the perspective of employees who completed the survey; and (c) perceptions of clinical trials from the perspective of nurses and radiation therapists who treated trial patients Findings had important implications for the conduct of workplace and clinical research in a cancer care environment. Some of the main findings included: (a) It may be difficult to conduct participatory research in a work environment given that power and a hierarchy of relationships interfere with employees being considered equal; (b) Many QWL issues presented by employees were not captured in the QWL Survey. QWL researchers need to ensure that QWL measures are pertinent to a particular worksite and encompass all meaningful QWL issues of a given work environment; (c) Ethical concerns associated with clinical trials suggested that the clinical trials department should review trial procedures; (d) Workload concerns associated with clinical trials implied that employees should be credited for their present involvement in trials; and (e) Clinical research was perceived to be more important than the QWL Project, party due to the perception that patient interests outweighed those of employees. In general, employees' perceptions of clinical and workplace research suggested that identification with the cancer centre as a clinical research organization contributed significantly to employees' QWL.
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 | 0.028 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".