MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2309585644 · doi:10.1111/ecc.12488

What are the needs of adolescents and young adults after a cancer treatment? A Delphi study

2016· article· en· W2309585644 on OpenAlexaff
Santiago Galán, Rocío de la Vega, Mélanie Racine, Ester Solé, Mark P. Jensen, Jordi Miró

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cancer Care · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsSt Joseph's Health CareLawson Health Research InstituteWestern University
FundersUniversitat Rovira i VirgiliMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad
KeywordsMedicineDelphi methodPsychological interventionNeeds assessmentYoung adultQuality of life (healthcare)Information needsCancer treatmentGerontologyCancerFamily medicineNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in the early detection of cancer and the development of more effective treatments have resulted in a larger number of adolescents and young adults (AYAs), becoming cancer survivors. However, knowledge regarding their needs and if those needs are adequately addressed remains limited. The aims of this study were to: (1) better understand the needs of AYAs after cancer treatment; (2) analyse the importance of those needs; (3) determine which needs are not adequately addressed; and (4) test the hypothesis that AYA cancer survivors have different needs than adult survivors. Twenty-nine health oncology professionals, 17 AYA survivors and 12 relatives of AYA survivors participated in the Delphi study. The needs identified could be classified into six categories, and all were rated as highly important by all participants. The category perceived as least adequately addressed across the three groups was 'Counselling and psychological support.' The findings provide important new information regarding the needs of AYA cancer survivors that can inform the development of interventions to improve the quality of life of these individuals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Cancer CareSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207