Prostate Cancer Support Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To understand prostate cancer (PCa) specialists' views about prostate cancer support groups (PCSGs), a volunteer sample of Canada-based PCa specialists (n = 150), including urologists (n = 100), radiation oncologists (n = 40), and medical oncologists (n = 10) were surveyed. The 56-item questionnaire used in this study included six sets of attitudinal items to measure prostate cancer specialists' beliefs about positive and negative influences of PCSGs, reasons for attending PCSGs, the attributes of effective PCSGs, and the value of face-to-face and web-based PCSGs. In addition, an open-ended question was included to invite additional input from participants. Results showed that PCSGs were positively valued, particularly for information sharing, education and psychosocial support. Inclusivity, privacy, and accessibility were identified as potential barriers, and recommendations were made for better marketing PCSGs to increase engagement. Findings suggest prostate cancer specialists highly valued the role and potential benefits of face-to-face PCSGs. Information provision and an educational role were perceived as key benefits. Some concerns were expressed about the ability of web-based PCSGs to effectively engage and educate men who experience prostate cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".