Comparing the Meanings of Fatigue in Individuals With Cancer in Thailand and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Illness is experienced in social contexts; its meaning is rooted in local beliefs and values as well as one's personal and family situation. Health professionals are steeped in knowledge of disease but know much less about illness. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to learn more about the social construction of illness by comparing the meanings of fatigue in Thai and Canadian individuals with cancer. METHODS: Using an ethnoscience design, 10 Thai adults receiving chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer or colorectal cancer were interviewed twice. They were asked to sort words and phrases about fatigue from their first interview using Q-sort, triadic, and dyadic approaches; to name each pile; and to describe the similarities and differences between the piles. The card sorts were used to understand the relationships among key ideas in each interview. A table summarizing the card sorts was constructed, and patterns in the data were identified. RESULTS: Two segregates in the Thai data were identified: essential/constant and intermittent, with essential/constant including 2 segregates (feeble and altered cognition), and intermittent including 2 segregates (loss of mental strength and difficulty sleeping). The primary meanings of fatigue in the Thai data were related to temporality, whereas the primary meanings of fatigue in the Canadian data were related to the location of the fatigue (mind/body). CONCLUSION: These findings help us understand the social construction of fatigue, a common symptom in cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Further research in relation to links between fatigue and other related-symptoms is needed with the goal of developing cross-cultural interventions for managing fatigue in the future.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".