A qualitative focus group study to identify the needs of survivors of stage II and III colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior survivorship research has largely focused on issues faced by survivors of childhood tumors, breast cancers, or hematologic malignancies. Relatively little is known about the needs of other prevalent survivor groups. Our aim was to identify the specific concerns of colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in the key domains of physical functioning, psychological wellbeing, and social relationships. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with stage II and III CRC survivors who had completed their primary active anti-cancer treatments. Patients were asked to describe how their diagnosis and treatment impacted their lives, to outline deficiencies in the care that they received, and to suggest ways of addressing any unmet needs. A content analysis was subsequently conducted to identify major themes. RESULTS: Thirty CRC survivors participated in six focus groups. Individuals reported some degree of dissatisfaction with the amount and type of diagnostic and treatment information they received at their initial clinic visit. Distress from toxicities, such as peripheral neuropathy, was also common among the survivors. Similarly, the majority faced challenges adjusting to their lives and daily activities, especially in caring for their colostomy. Having survived CRC, many survivors expressed an interest in advocacy and health promotion of CRC. CONCLUSIONS: CRC survivors face many barriers after their cancer treatment. Issues with colostomy are unique to this survivor group. Interventions to improve CRC survivorship care should also incorporate opportunities for patient advocacy. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".