Healthcare Providers' Perspectives of the Supportive Care Needs of Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To examine healthcare providers' (HCPs') perceptions of the supportive care needs of men with advanced prostate cancer (APC). RESEARCH APPROACH: A qualitative, descriptive study. SETTING: Healthcare facilities caring for men with APC in a south-central region of Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: 19 nurses, physicians, and allied health providers who cared for men with APC in outpatient settings. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Interviews and focus groups. FINDINGS: HCPs identified four themes related to men's supportive care needs: pain and symptom management, informational needs, emotional needs, and the need for practical assistance. HCPs emphasized issues related to pain, urinary incontinence, and fatigue. They also reported that men continually ask for more information related to treatment, side effects, and prognosis. PARTICIPANTS identified a variety of barriers in meeting supportive care needs, including lack of management strategies, poor knowledge retention, and the "stoic and old-school" nature of men in this population. CONCLUSIONS: Supportive care for this population can be improved through more focused implementation of interprofessional care, with clearly defined professional roles and additional specialized roles to address prostate cancer pain, urinary incontinence, and fatigue. INTERPRETATION: Specialized roles in the management of pain, urinary incontinence, and fatigue affecting men with APC could be integrated into interprofessional care to meet supportive care needs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".