MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965057148 · doi:10.2196/cancer.3521

Availability of Information About Lifestyle for Cancer Survivors in England: A Review of Statutory and Charitable Sector Organizations and Cancer Centers

2015· review· en· W1965057148 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kate Williams, Abigail Fisher, Rebecca J. Beeken, Jane Wardle

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCancer Research UK
KeywordsStatutory lawCancerMedicineBreast cancerColorectal cancerProstate cancerPublic relationsFamily medicineGerontologyBusinessPolitical scienceInternal medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.320 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207