MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Partner’s survivorship care needs: Multivariable analysis in head and neck cancer patients.

2016· article· en· W2587326061 on OpenAlexaff
Meredith Giuliani, Maurene McQuestion, Lorna Sampson, Lisa W. Le, Jennifer M. Jones, Terry Cheng, John Waldron, Jolie Ringash

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurvivorship curveNeeds assessmentHead and neck cancerFamily medicineCancerCancer survivorGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

120 Background: The purpose of this study was to determine the number and predictors of head and neck cancer (HNC) survivors’ partners unmet needs and how they correspond to the unmet needs of the survivor. Methods: This study accrued consenting partners from among 158 patients with HNC who had completed a onetime survey including demographic information and the Cancer Survivors’ Unmet Needs Measure (CaSUN) between January 2013 and May 2014. Patients’ caregivers were invited to complete the Cancer Survivors’ Partners Unmet Needs Survey (CaSPUN). The mean (± standard deviation) number and proportion of unmet needs on the CaSPUN was calculated. Multivariable analyses (MVA) were performed to determine factors associated with greater unmet needs using linear regression. Kappa co-efficient was calculated to examine the agreement between the unmet needs of patients and their partners on 22 corresponding items. Results: The CaSPUN survey was completed by 44 partners of head and neck cancer survivors. At least one unmet need was reported by 29 partners and 4 had a very high number of needs between 31 and 35. The most common unmet needs were “I need help to manage my concerns about the cancer coming back” (41%), “I need more accessible hospital parking” (34%), “ I need help to cope with others not acknowledging the impact of having a partner experience cancer has had on my own life” (30%), “ I need help dealing with changes that cancer has caused in my partner” (27%) and “I need to know all my partners doctors talk to each other to coordinate my partner’s care” (27%). Of the 5 most common items, 3 were in the Relationships domain. On MVA increasing number of unmet needs in patients was significantly associated with increased unmet needs in their partners (p < 0.01). Of the 22 paired items there was fair agreement in 12 items, moderate agreement in 8 items and good agreement in 2 items between patients and partners. Conclusions: A significant proportion of partners of cancer patients experience unmet needs which may differ from those of the patient themselves. Survivorship program should consider independent needs assessment and program development for partners.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.129
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.348 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207