Evaluating health-related quality of life and priority health problems in patients with prostate cancer: A strategy for defining the role of the advanced practice nurse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A framework for the introduction and evaluation of APN roles emphasizes the importance of a systematic approach to role development based on the assessment of patient health needs. This study determined the health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients with prostate cancer. The most frequent and severe patient health problems and their perceptions of priority health problems were identified and compared across five patient groups as a strategy to inform the supportive care role of the advanced oncology nurse for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The study found that the majority of men with early stage and advanced hormone sensitive prostate cancer can expect to enjoy good quality of life for several years following diagnosis. These two patient groups have common priority needs for improving their health related to sexual function, urinary frequency, urinary incontinence, and physical activity. Both groups may benefit from an advanced practice nursing (APN) role that can provide episodic supportive care for health problems occurring at different treatment stages. Conversely, it was found that men with advanced hormone refractory prostate cancer experience significantly poorer HRQL and have multiple severe health problems. These patients also have different priority needs including problems related to pain, fatigue, and decreased physical activity. Because of this, the focus of supportive care programs and interventions in advanced prostate cancer will differ for those with hormone refractory disease. They may benefit more from an APN role that can provide ongoing rather than episodic supportive care to assess and manage the multiple, new, and worsening health problems associated with progressive disease.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".