Perspectives from older adults receiving cancer treatment about the cancer-related information they receive
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients have reported that information plays a significant role in their capacity to cope with cancer and manage the consequences of treatment. This study was undertaken to identify the importance older adults receiving cancer treatment assign to selected types of cancer-related information, their satisfaction with the cancer-related information they received, and the barriers to effective information provision for this age group. METHODS: This study was conducted in two phases with separate samples. Six hundred and eighty-four older cancer patients receiving treatment completed a standardized survey and 39 completed a semi-structured interview to gather perspectives about cancer-related information. Data were analyzed for 65-79 years and 80+ year groups. RESULTS: < 0.01). Although participants were generally satisfied with the information, they received many described challenges they experienced in communicating with health care professionals because of the medical language and fast pace of speaking used by the professionals. CONCLUSIONS: The older cancer patients in this study endorsed the same topics of cancer-related information as most important as has been reported in studies for other age groups. However, this older group recommended that, during their interactions with older individuals, health care professionals use fewer medical words, speak at a slower pace, and provide written information in addition to the actual conversation.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".