Young Adults’ Perceptions of the Venturing Out Pack Program as a Tangible Cancer Support Service
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To explore the extent to which contents contained in a backpack called the Venturing Out Pack (Vo-Pak) assist in meeting the practical, psychosocial, and informational needs of young adults (YAs), as well as how the Vo-Pak could better meet the needs of YAs. . RESEARCH APPROACH: Qualitative, descriptive. . SETTING: A university-affiliated adult hospital cancer center in Montreal, Quebec. . PARTICIPANTS: 12 YAs treated for cancer. . METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: One-time, individual, semistructured interviews. Verbatim transcripts underwent thematic analysis. . FINDINGS: Participants viewed the Vo-Pak as a welcoming, ready-to-use, timely package that met many cancer-related needs. The Vo-Pak contains three kits. CONCLUSIONS: This program adds value to efforts to enhance cancer care for YAs. Integrating participants' recommendations contributes to the overarching goal of comprehensive person-centered care to an underserved segment of the cancer population. . INTERPRETATION: The Vo-Pak program could be optimized by re-engaging healthcare professionals in its broader dissemination. Champions may be added to optimize the successful implementation of tangible support programs. YAs seem eager to connect with peers. The Vo-Pak can be instrumental in facilitating these connections and enabling these exchanges.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".