Exploratory Survey of Patients' Needs and Perceptions of Psychosocial Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer is a major health issue that affects a significant proportion of the population. Advancements in oncology treatment have reduced mortality, creating an ever-greater need for psychosocial oncology. Patients with cancer at Grand River Regional Cancer Centre (GRRCC) have access to some psychosocial intervention (e.g., wellness workshops, social work intervention); however, the extent to which these efforts meet patients' current needs is not known. The purpose of the exploratory survey was to assess patients' psychosocial needs and psychosocial oncology service needs. Patients receiving treatment for cancer at GRRCC were asked to participate in the anonymous survey. Two research assistants from the University of Guelph obtained informed consent, then with assistance from volunteers from the GRRCC, collected all data. The two screening tools, and standardized, self-report measures of depression and social support (Perceived Social Support Scale) were administered. Patients rated the psychosocial oncology services as very helpful, though 100% indicated the presence of distress. The main source of distress concerned not knowing what their personal outcomes will be. Implications for practice and research are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".