Factors Influencing Men Undertaking Active Surveillance for the Management of Low-Risk Prostate Cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To identify and describe decision-making influences on men who decide to manage their low-risk prostate cancer with active surveillance. RESEARCH APPROACH: Qualitative, semistructured interview. SETTING: The Prostate Centre at Vancouver General Hospital in Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 25 patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer and on active surveillance. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: An interpretative, descriptive, qualitative design. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Factors that influenced men's decisions to take up active surveillance. FINDINGS: The specialists' description of the prostate cancer was the most influential factor on men choosing active surveillance. Patients did not consider their prostate cancer to be life threatening and, in general, were relieved that no treatment was required. Avoiding treatment-related suffering and physical dysfunction and side effects such as impotence and incontinence was cited as the major reason to delay treatment. Few men actively sought treatment or health-promotion information following their treatment decision. Female partners played a supportive role in the decision. The need for active treatment if the cancer progressed was acknowledged. Patients were hopeful that new treatments would be available when and if they needed them. Being older and having comorbidities did not preclude the desire for future active treatment. Patients carried on with their lives as usual and did not report having any major distress related to being on active surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings indicate that men are strongly influenced by the treating specialist in taking up active surveillance and planning future active treatments. As such, most men relied on their specialists' recommendation and did not perceive the need for any adjunct therapy or support until the cancer required active treatment. INTERPRETATION: Oncology nurses should work collaborative-ly with specialists to ensure that men receive the information they need to make informed treatment decisions.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it