Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The impacts of cancer on young men are reportedly different from the experiences of others. These impacts may adversely affect the health and the healthcare of young men. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this article was to conduct a literature review to examine what is known about the experiences of young men with cancer. METHODS: A systematic strategy was used to locate original research that included 4 electronic databases using the search terms men, young men, male, father, parents, and cancer experience. RESULTS: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Twelve studies used qualitative methodology, and 4 studies used a quantitative method; no mixed-method studies were found. Of the studies reviewed, 6 focused on the experiences of men but not young men aged 20 to 44 years exclusively, 10 studies had male and female respondents. Analysis revealed 5 themes: (1) manhood in question, (2) the good father or not, (3) family and that special bond, (4) silencing cancer talk, and (5) living with uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Young men are building resources while creating family bonds, and they identify themselves through their work. Young men with cancer have needs specific to their gender and cohort. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Methodological and conceptual recommendations are presented. This includes conducting research focusing on this cohort and using a life-course perspective. Understanding the overall experience of this cohort will enable the development of clinical interventions for young men with cancer. Supportive care in a nonthreatening environment is needed to help young men cope with the problems described.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".