Do Current Cancer Follow-Up Care Practices Meet the Needs of Young Adult Cancer Survivors in Canada? A Aualitative Inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study was to assess whether current cancer follow-up care practices meet the needs of young adult cancer survivors in Canada. METHODS: This qualitative study used a constructivist grounded theory framework to analyze telephone interviews with cancer survivors from across Canada diagnosed between the ages of 18 and 39 years. The focus was specifically on cancer follow-up care (cfc). RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 55 participants, and 53 interviews were used for the analysis. The overall theme that emerged from the data was the lack of age-specific cfc. Some of the subthemes that emerged were the absence or inadequacy of fertility and infertility treatment options; of psychological services such as family, couples, and sexuality counseling; of social supports such as assistance with entry or re-entry into the education system or workplace; of access to supplemental health insurance; and of survivorship care plans. Based on the data resulting from the interviews, we developed a conceptual model of young-adult cfc incorporating the major themes and subthemes that emerged from our study. The proposed model aims to ensure a more age-appropriate and comprehensive approach to cfc for this group of cancer patients. CONCLUSIONS: Current Canadian cfc practices are inadequate and do not provide comprehensive care for young adult cancer survivors in Canada. The conceptual model presented here aims to ensure a more comprehensive approach to cfc that meets the needs of this unique cancer population and reduces further possible physical, psychological, or social cancer sequelae.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".