A Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives on Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to use qualitative methods to contribute to a complete patient perspective on the psychosocial impact of colorectal cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted in 20 patients attending a gastrointestinal follow-up clinic at the Toronto-Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre. The data documented included patient satisfaction and perceptions regarding to quality of care, information received, involvement in decision making, and long-term management of the illness. RESULTS: Overall, patients were satisfied with their treatment, including the quality and timeliness of the information they received, the quality of their healthcare, and the level of involvement in decision making. However, some patients were dissatisfied with information concerning long-term management of their illness. Patient care, including information and social support, was provided by cancer specialists, family physicians, family, and friends. Patients looked to cancer specialists as their primary source of information, but relied on family physicians to fill in gaps in understanding, to provide support, to manage overall care, and to act as a sounding board for ideas and treatment options. Social support was also provided by family and friends. All patients had a relatively positive outlook on their illness experience, although those with colostomies had some added difficulty. Despite the focus on positive change, many patients acknowledged difficulty coping with the side effects of treatment. CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that patient information needs to be provided in the most common terms and the most straightforward language. Information also may need to be repeated and should include attention to long-term management of the illness. Health professionals should assume that patients may have difficulty in illness management and should encourage a discussion of patients' concerns.
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 | 0.022 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".