Early Postsurgery Experience of Prostate Cancer Patients and Spouses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The authors describe the experience of men with prostate cancer and their spouses in the early recovery period after surgery. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY: As part of a longitudinal qualitative study, semistructured interviews were held with 34 patients who had prostate cancer and their spouses 8 to 10 weeks after surgery. RESULTS: Five components of experience emerged from the interviews: 1) hearing news about the extent of their cancer after surgery influenced how patients viewed their cancer experience and, in many cases, their recovery; 2) men placed great emphasis on recovering their physical capacity quickly; 3) couples connected with each other through working out care routines and managing periods of irritability; 4) couples described a range of responses to surgery side effects and complications; and 5) the meaning of cancer varied for couples, with most seeing the experience as a temporary disruption. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Physicians, nurses, social workers, and other health professionals working with patients before and after prostatectomies may assist couples to prepare better for the early recovery period by being both sensitive to the men's need to recover physical capacity quickly while helping them to understand that recovery takes time. Accurate information about expected periods of irritability, side effects, and possible complications would diminish the likelihood of distress during this period.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".