The use of Internet as an information resource among cancer patients at a Canadian cancer centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
18561 Background: Understanding the nature of Internet use among cancer patients is important to facilitate patient-education interventions and for providing optimal patient care. This questionnaire study is designed to evaluate Internet use by cancer patients at a cancer centre. Methods: Cancer patients attending ambulatory clinics at a single Canadian cancer centre were approached by their health care staff. Participants filled out self-administered questionnaire collecting information on demographics, frequency of Internet usage, timing of Internet use during treatment course, type of information sought, and information on patient’s comfort level and satisfaction with Internet use. Results: Of the total 250 participants, 174 (70%) had used the Internet before and 76 (30%) had never used the Internet. Users were more likely to be younger, female, have English as their first language, and be of Caucasian descent. Individuals with breast cancer were also more likely to have used the Internet than pts with other malignancies. Of the Internet users (n = 174), the majority (87%, n = 152) accessed the Internet once per week or more, and felt strongly confident (44%, n=76) in navigating the Internet. 29 users (17%) felt that the information on the Internet was not trustworthy. Of the users, 136 (78%) used the Internet to access information on cancer, and reportedly more often before visiting the cancer centre (50%, n = 70) and before starting initiating cancer treatment (78%, n = 106). The users seeking information on cancer were most likely to look for information on cancer treatment (87%, n = 118) and side effects (74%, n = 100). The top three visited sites were those for Canadian cancer society, Google, and American cancer society. Conclusions: Despite wide availability and accessibility of Internet, it is still not being used as a cancer information tool by many of our patients. By ensuring that accurate and comprehensive information is available on the Internet, perhaps even more patients will use this medium as their information resource, to better understand their diagnosis and make optimal treatment decisions. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".