The Supportive Care Needs of Men With Advanced 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 better understand the priority supportive care needs of men with advanced prostate cancer. RESEARCH APPROACH: Qualitative, descriptive study. SETTING: Outpatient cancer center and urology clinics in central western Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 12 men with hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and 17 men with hormone-refractory prostate cancer. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Patients participated in focus groups and interviews that examined their supportive care needs, their priority needs, and suggestions for improvements to the delivery of care. Tape-recorded focus group discussions and interviews were organized using NVivo software. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Patients' supportive care needs. FINDINGS: Participants identified prostate cancer-specific information and support to maintain their ability "to do what they want to do" as priority needs. Both hormone-sensitive and hormone-refractory groups cited problems with urinary function, the side effects of treatment, fatigue, and sexual concerns as major functional issues. Participants experienced emotional distress related to diagnosis and treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A priority health need for men with advanced prostate cancer is to improve or maintain functional abilities. In addition, men require support to meet their stage-specific information needs and to address concerns about the diagnosis and ambivalent feelings about past treatment decisions. INTERPRETATION: Nurses could play an important role in addressing men's information needs and providing emotional support. The complex care needs of men with advanced prostate cancer provide opportunity for the development of advanced practice nurse roles that would use the clinical and nonclinical aspects of the role.
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