Shifting to conscious control: psychosocial and dietary management of anorexia by patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The psychosocial strategies used by advanced cancer patients to manage anorexia are poorly described. A greater understanding of them may guide clinicians to provide appropriate interventions to patients and caregivers. METHODS: Glaserian Grounded Theory was used to recruit and analyse data from two women and seven men with advanced cancer suffering from anorexia. They were interviewed about the emotional and social impact of appetite loss and the strategies that they used to compensate for reduced food intake. RESULTS: Shifting to conscious control (overeating) was the basic social psychological process employed by participants to manage the emotional and social consequences of declining intake. Although a number of symptoms were found to contribute, nausea or the anticipation of emesis provoked by food was most commonly named as the ultimate barrier to eating. DISCUSSION: Participants retained the motivation and ability to eat without appetite, providing the intake of food did not provoke nausea or the anticipation of emesis. Nutritional interventions must be tailored around patients' eating capabilities. Counselling and education programmes that assist family members in understanding the shift to conscious control over eating are required.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".