Decision-Making Control: Why Men Decline Treatment for Prostate Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative analysis of decision-making control by men with prostate cancer who refuse conventional cancer therapies. The transcripts for 8 prostate cancer patients from a larger qualitative study were analyzed separately to explore in depth the factors related to decision-making control. RESULTS: Most men were newly diagnosed when they made the decision to forgo conventional cancer treatment in favor of alternative approaches. Five areas were identified in which patients took control over the treatment process. These include control over (1) the timing of treatment, (2) information about conventional treatment and risk assessment, (3) designing an alternative treatment plan, (4) coordination of cancer care, and (5) monitoring and evaluation of disease progression. Clinicians can support patients who delay or forgo treatment for prostate cancer by helping them maintain a sense of control over the treatment process. This can be achieved by supporting patients' efforts to integrate complementary therapies into their cancer care, by addressing fears related to treatment early in the decision-making process, and by encouraging open communication about the reasons for seeking alternatives to conventional treatment. Findings from this study need to be evaluated in a larger, quantitative study.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".