MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396042534

Perspectives on living with ovarian cancer: older women's views.

2001· article· en· W2396042534 on OpenAlexaffabout
Margaret I. Fitch, Ross E. Gray, Edmée Franssen

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHelpfulnessOvarian cancerQuality of life (healthcare)CancerFamily medicineGynecologyGerontologyNursingInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe the perspectives of older women regarding their experiences living with ovarian cancer. DESIGN: Retrospective survey. SETTING: Canada. SAMPLE: 146 women, 61 years of age or older, diagnosed with ovarian cancer. METHODS: Questionnaire distributed by oncologists and nurses in 26 cancer clinics across Canada to eligible patients during a six-week period. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Patient problems experienced, help received for problems, impact of illness, quality of life, importance of and satisfaction with information received, and helpfulness of others. FINDINGS: Women experienced, on average, 5.2 problems since diagnosis. The most frequently identified problems were side effects (54%), fear of recurrence (45%), bowel difficulties (43%), and difficulty sleeping (36%). Of the women who experienced problems, the proportion who felt they received adequate help ranged from 36%-74%. Approximately half (57%) of these women reported a lifestyle change. A significant difference was observed in quality of life before and after the diagnosis of ovarian cancer (p = 0.0002). When asked about the desire to talk about their difficulties with cancer, only 54% indicated that they wanted to talk. Approximately one-quarter of the women were satisfied with the information they received regarding complementary (25%) and alternative (23%) therapies, and how to speak with other women living with ovarian cancer (28%). Thirty-five percent were satisfied with the information they received about self-help groups. CONCLUSION: Ovarian cancer has a significant impact on older women, and many perceive they are not receiving adequate assistance for problems they experience. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: Oncology nurses should conduct comprehensive assessments of the needs of older women with ovarian cancer, refer those who require specialized counseling, and provide information desired by patients with ovarian cancer about available resources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.215

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations47
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207