Masculinities and patient perspectives of communication about active surveillance for prostate cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to describe connections between masculinities and patient perspectives of active surveillance (AS) related communication with male physicians. METHOD: An interpretive descriptive qualitative design was used to explore patient-physician communication from the perspectives of 25 men on AS. In-depth, semistructured interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded. Key concepts were described and a masculinities gender framework guided analyses of patients' perspectives. RESULTS: Patient-physician communication of diagnosis, treatment options, and specificities of AS featured prominently within participants' interviews. Most participants reported brevity in patient-physician communication amid accepting the physician's communication style and recommendations. Participants' accounts suggested "therapeutic" communications as contingent on positioning physicians as authoritative and assigning them control, while patients were stoic in accepting AS. However, some participants reported being confused about their diagnosis details and specific AS protocols, and resisted traditional physician-patient hierarchies, desiring more collaborative decision-making processes. In this regard communications emerged as "threat," in that participants lacked and/or lost confidence in their physician and were uncertain and anxious about the legitimacy of AS. These findings were interpreted within a gender framework, showing how patients drew on an array of masculine ideals, including stoicism, denying illness, and respecting expertise in different ways. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel findings illuminate complexities of men's perspectives about patient-physician communication in AS, and offer insights about how masculinities influence what can be understood as potentially helpful and unhelpful communication among this emergent patient population.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".