Adaptation of an instrument to measure the informational needs of men with prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of this study is to adapt an instrument suitable for assessment of the informational needs of men with prostate cancer. BACKGROUND: In recent years prostate cancer has become an important public health problem world-wide with considerable social and economic consequences. It is reported that it is the most common cancer affecting British men, with an average lifetime risk of occurrence of one in twelve. DESIGN/METHODS: Methodological research was conducted to develop an instrument to assess the informational needs of men with prostate cancer on hormonal manipulation therapy (HMT) regarding their disease and treatment. The Toronto Informational Needs Questionnaire (TINQ-BC) (Galloway et al. 1997) was modified for use with this client group and was applied to a sample of 90 men generated from three urology centres in Northern Ireland. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Construct and content validity of the instrument was established. Internal consistency reliability using Cronbach's alpha was calculated and found to be satisfactory (0.92). Using confirmatory factor analysis, factor loadings ranging from 0.37 to 0.90 were obtained and considered satisfactory. The subsections of the TINQ-BC categorized as Disease, Investigative tests, Treatment, Psychosocial and Physical needs were confirmed as individual factors. These results indicate that this instrument can be validly applied to this client group. As the instrument was initially developed in Canada and successfully used in the United Kingdom (UK), it is suggested that this instrument also has the potential for cross-cultural application. It has the potential to be used as a clinical reference instrument to assess the informational needs of this patient group. Health care professionals must be aware of the domains of information that these men perceive important so that educational interventions can be accurately and appropriately planned.
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 | 0.009 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".