Health-risk behaviors and health promotion in adolescent and young adult cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A diagnosis of cancer during adolescence, a period characterized by experimentation and risk-taking behaviors, has the potential to derail critical developmental tasks required for successful transition into adulthood. Health professionals caring for adolescents and young adults have an opportunity to influence behavioral practices by correcting knowledge deficits, addressing factors that enhance the survivor's sense of vulnerability to health problems, and providing personalized health counseling that encourages the practice of health promoting behaviors. The approach to health counseling in childhood cancer survivors should consider their unique educational needs related to their cancer experience. Previous investigations of adolescent and young adult survivor health behavior indicate that survivors perceive themselves as more vulnerable to health problems than their peers without cancer and recognize a need to protect their health. However, these perceptions of health vulnerability do not always correlate with health promoting behavioral practices, suggesting that factors other than health perceptions should be investigated to motivate behavioral change. Very few studies have been undertaken to prospectively evaluate the effectiveness of health promotion programs in adolescent and young adult survivors of cancer. The scarcity of knowledge in the issue of health promotion after childhood cancer underscores the need for more research to define 1) the optimal timing of health counseling; 2) the influence of developmental status and neurocognitive function; 3) the most effective methods and venues for health education; 4) the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of health promotion strategies; and 5) psychosocial and economic impediments to practice of healthy behaviors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".