The Art of Age-Appropriate Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is recognition that teenagers and young adults with cancer merit age-appropriate specialist care. However, outcomes associated with such specialist care are not defined. Patient experience and patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life are gaining importance. Nevertheless, there is a lack of theoretical basis and patient involvement in experience surveys for young people. OBJECTIVE: We previously proposed a conceptual model of the lived experience of cancer. We aimed to refine this model adding to areas that were lacking or underreported. The proposed conceptual framework will inform a bespoke patient experience survey for young people. METHODS: Using participatory research, 11 young people aged 13 to 25 years at diagnosis, participated in a 1-day workshop consisting of semistructured peer-to-peer interviews. RESULTS: Eight core themes emerged: impact of cancer diagnosis, information provision, place of care, role of health professionals, coping, peers, psychological support, and life after cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual framework has informed survey development for a longitudinal cohort study examining patient experience and outcomes associated with specialist cancer care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Young people must be kept at the center of interactions in recognition of their stated needs of engagement, of individually tailored information and support unproxied by parents/family. Age-appropriate information and support services that help young people deal with the impact of cancer on daily life and life after cancer must be made available. If we are to develop services that meet need, patient experience surveys must be influenced by patient involvement. Young people can be successfully involved in planning research relevant to their experience.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".