The Supportive Care Needs of Men With Advanced Prostate Cancer
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".