Addressing the information needs of patients with prostate cancer: A literature review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Psychosocial support is a cornerstone in the holistic care of cancer patients. The provision of information is a key tool in the psychosocial management of the cancer patient, and it is important that the therapy radiographer is cognizant of the patient's need for information. This article reviews the importance of information to the psychosocial well-being of cancer patients in general, with specific emphasis on patients with prostate cancer. The information services at a large Canadian cancer facility are also reviewed to gain some insight into how the needs of patients with prostate cancer are addressed at the author's workplace. Most patients with prostate cancer have an expressed need for considerable amounts of information at various stages of their cancer journey. The provision of information has a range of benefits to the prostate patient such as helping the patient deal with their diagnosis, assisting with the decision-making process and reducing anxiety. Interpersonal sources of information such as face-to-face communication with the oncologist or radiation therapist are preferred by many patients, including patients with prostate cancer. Other sources that include the internet and written hospital material are also used with varying degrees of effectiveness to deliver information. The provision of quality information in a timely and effective manner cannot be taken for granted. Access to appropriate information resources can be impeded because of poorly designed information material, inadequate communication, ineffective signposting, resource constraints and lack of knowledge/comprehension on the part of frontline health-care workers dealing with the patient. Radiation therapists are encouraged to be advocates for their patients’ information needs and to be involved in initiatives that will improve the quality, dissemination and efficacy of information.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".