MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2566546801

Peer support groups for prostate cancer in Australia: a snapshot in 2002

2002· article· en· W2566546801 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Suzanne K. Steginga, Carole Pinnock, Max Gardner, Jeff Dunn, RA Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenueAdelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProstate cancerSnapshot (computer storage)MedicineComputer scienceCancerInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decade, peer support programs for men with prostate cancer have been reported in North America and Canada (Us Too and Man to Man), and in British Columbia (Prostate Support and Awareness). Such groups have also emerged across Australia, and more recently these groups affiliated with the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (PCFA) as the Support and Advocacy Committee. Forty four groups exist under the umbrella of the PCFA. with each Australian state and territory represented. To date, however, empirical data has not been gathered on the activities of these groups. This report describes the first stage of a three-phase project to examine the current activities of these groups, how they assist men with prostate cancer, and consequently determine future program development needs. In all, 41 group leaders were surveyed (93% response). Group membership consisted mostly of men who had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, with an estimated 3,300 men currently members. Groups were predominantly peer supervised. Other types of overall management and group facilitation were health professionals, and a shared role between a man who had had prostate cancer and a health professional. The mean time of group operation was four years and five months. The main sources of support for groups were local state councils and hospitals who 'provided assistance such as meeting rooms, photocopying and postage, a 'health professional to facilitate meetings, special training for members, and funds. Three groups described receiving no support from any source. The main activities undertaken by groups were general discussion meetings, group education sessions with guest lecturers, regular newsletters, and one to one telephone support by members with no special training. Group leaders described doctors as referring men to their groups "sometimes" and as working "somewhat closely" with their groups. Working with doctors helped groups by providing expert information and advice to them, acting as a source of referral to and promotion for groups, and adding professionalism and credibility to them. In all, 63% of participants described wanting to work more closely with doctors in these ways. A key difficulty described by group leaders was that the responsibility for managing the group often fell to the same individuals, with difficulties experienced in recruiting other members to take on leadership roles in the group. The present study demonstrates the depth of activity in peer support for prostate cancer in Australia and suggests that work to develop further collaborative relationships between these groups and health professionals may be needed. Prostate cancer support groups express a desire to work more closely with health professionals, and in particular doctors such as urologists and radiation oncologists. Further work to build on this preliminary study is in progress.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.132
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide)Same topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207