Availability of Information About Lifestyle for Cancer Survivors in England: A Review of Statutory and Charitable Sector Organizations and Cancer Centers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health behavior change following a cancer diagnosis has the potential to improve long-term outcomes. However, many patients do not receive professional advice about lifestyle and are therefore increasingly using the Internet to seek further information. The statutory and charitable sectors and cancer centers all play an important role in the provision of information and have been found to be favored by cancer survivors searching for information. However, to date there has been no systematic evaluation of the lifestyle information available online for cancer survivors. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review was to identify the lifestyle information provided for cancer survivors by statutory and charitable sector organizations and cancer centers in the United Kingdom. We aimed to identify information on tobacco, physical activity, diet, weight, and alcohol designed for people who have been diagnosed with breast, prostate, or colorectal cancer. METHODS: The National Health Service (NHS) website was the focus of the search for information provided by the statutory sector. Cancer centers were identified from the Organization of European Cancer Institutes and an Internet search, and charitable sector organizations were identified by searching the Charity Commission database. The three largest generic, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer charitable organizations were included. A systematic search of the organizations was conducted to identify lifestyle information for cancer survivors. RESULTS: Ten organizations had some lifestyle information for cancer survivors on their websites. The Christie NHS Foundation Trust, Macmillan Cancer Support, and Prostate Cancer UK had the most comprehensive guides, covering physical activity, diet, weight management, smoking, and alcohol. The NHS website did not provide any information but had a link to Cancer Research UK's information about diet. Eight organizations suggested talking to a health professional before making any changes. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of organizations included in this review would benefit from updating their websites to include adequate information and advice about lifestyle for cancer survivors, or they risk cancer survivors turning to less reliable sources of information. Health professionals should be appropriately trained to deal with questions about lifestyle and to advise cancer survivors about lifestyle changes following their diagnosis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".