The cancer Support Person's Unmet Needs Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A rigorous psychometric methodology was used to develop a measure of unmet needs for cancer survivors' principal support persons. Principal support person was defined as "someone you can count on and who helps you with your needs." METHODS: Development of the domains and the items followed an extensive literature review, iterative input from support persons, and consultation with health professionals and front-line staff working with cancer survivors and their supports. Cognitive interviews helped clarify item wording, and the draft questionnaire was reappraised by a group of support persons. The questionnaire was reduced to 90 items and sent to a stratified, random sample of cancer survivors selected from a provincial population-based cancer registry. They were asked to give the survey to their support person. RESULTS: The resulting 78-item Support Person Unmet Needs Survey has high acceptability, item test-retest reliability, internal consistency (Chronbach alpha = .990), and face, content, and construct validity. It captures 6 domains of unmet needs and accounts for 73.5% of total variance: Information and Relationship Needs (27 items, 22.1% of variance), Emotional Needs (16 items, 15.2%), Personal Needs (14 items, 14.0%), Work and Finance (8 items, 8.8%), Health Care Access and Continuity (9 items, 8.6%), and Worries About Future (4 items, 4.8%). CONCLUSIONS: This instrument will be of use where there is an interest in examining the impact of cancer not only on cancer survivors but also on their identified principal support persons.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".