Adjustment, psychological functioning and health-related quality of life in adults with primary malignant brain tumours
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The thesis has been prepared in a paper-based format and includes three papers: Paper 1, a systematic review; Paper 2, an empirical study; and Paper 3, a critical appraisal and reflection on the work.Paper 1 has been prepared for submission to Neuro-Oncology. The paper presents a systematic review of 21 studies concerning the relationships of demographic, clinical and mental health factors on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and psychological functioning in adults with primary malignant brain tumours. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) principles. Methodological qualities of studies included were appraised using a checklist based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (Wells et al, n.d.).Findings were synthesised narratively adhering to published guidelines (Popay et al, 2006). The review identified evidence for factors relating to HRQoL and psychological functioning, offered several considerations for clinical practice, and outlined recommendations for improving the methodological rigour of future research.Paper 2 has been prepared for submission to Psycho-Oncology and presents the findings of a qualitative study of patients? psychological adjustment to glioblastoma, the most aggressive and most common form of brain tumour in adults. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 participants 3.3-5.1 months post-diagnosis. Data were analysed using a constructivist grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014). Analysis yielded three theoretical categories describing processes of maintaining continuity with the past, reframing the present and changing to accommodate an uncertain future. The implications of these findings on current supportive interventions are discussed.Paper 3 is not intended for publication. It offers a critical appraisal of the individual papers and the research process overall, considering their strengths and limitations. The paper also discusses issues of reflexivity encountered during the empirical study, and considers the implications of this research for the author?s professional development as a clinical psychologist.
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 | 0.012 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".