Informational needs of gastrointestinal oncology patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In response to the dearth of consumer health information for patients with gastrointestinal cancers, this study examined the informational needs of these patients to build a plan for future resource development. Although studies have examined informational needs of some such cancers, no published literature has investigated the comprehensive informational needs across all sites of gastrointestinal cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional needs assessment comprising a self-administered questionnaire was conducted at an ambulatory gastrointestinal oncology clinic in Toronto, Canada. Patient informational needs were measured, including importance of information, amount desired and preferred mode of delivery. Informational needs were grouped into six domains: medical, practical, physical, emotional, social and spiritual. RESULTS: Eighty-two surveys were analysed. The majority of the respondents were male (53.8%), over the age of 50 (77.8%), and born outside of Canada (51.9%). While many did not speak English as a child (46.3%), and do not speak English at home (22.2%), nearly all indicated comfort with receiving health information in English (97.5%). The majority of respondents were college educated (79.3%) and married (73%). Multiple cancer types were reported; the most common being colorectal (39%), followed by pancreatic (12%) and cancers of the gallbladder or bile duct (12%). Overall, respondents placed highest importance on medical information (P < 0.001). Preferred education modalities were pamphlets, websites and one-on-one discussions with health-care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the principal informational needs of patients with gastrointestinal malignancies, along with preferred modality for information delivery. This information will guide the development of educational resources for future patients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".