The Experiences of Patients With Advanced Head and Neck Cancer With a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: While the percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) tube has become an established part of the management regimen for patients with head and neck cancer (HNCA) with impaired nutrition and functional status, limited research has explored the impact and experiences of living with a PEG tube from the patient's perspective. This qualitative study serves as a follow-up investigation undertaken to describe the experiences of patients with advanced HNCA living with a PEG tube. Materials and Methods: Eligible patients from convenience sampling were invited to participate until data saturation was reached. In-depth interviews were conducted with consenting participants. Qualitative descriptive design guided the content analysis of the interview transcripts. Results: Of the 49 patients invited, a total of 15 participants' interviews were transcribed and analyzed. Each interview was 15-90 minutes in length. Four of 22 content codes were chosen to describe the overarching ideas of the progressive experience of a patient's journey from the initial decision-making process around tube insertion through to its removal. Difficulty swallowing and weight loss emerged as primary factors for PEG tube insertion, and all participants became accustomed to living with the tube. Resuming a complete oral diet was a gradual transition. All participants recognized the value of the tube, and most acknowledged its necessity for their survival. Conclusions: Results describe the overall PEG tube experience as a dichotomy. While there were issues with the PEG tube, all participants found the tube to be beneficial. This study provides invaluable insight from a practice perspective.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".