Survivorship care needs among LGBT cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To better understand survivorship care needs among LGBT cancer survivors. DESIGN: We administered an anonymous online survey. SAMPLE: LGBT cancer survivors living in the United States. METHODS: Participants were recruited via the National LGBT Cancer Project. The survey measured sociodemographic characteristics, social support, posttraumatic stress, and survivorship care needs. RESULTS: Approximately 72% of our 114 participants were cisgender male and 87% were white. Almost all participants reported at least some unmet survivorship care needs (73%), with over half of participants reporting unmet psychological and sexuality care needs. Participants who reported their oncologist was not LGBT-competent had greater unmet needs (t(82) = 2.5, p = 0.01) and greater posttraumatic stress (t(91) = 2.1, p = 0.035). CONCLUSIONS: LGBT cancer survivors have significant unmet survivorship care needs, and lack of oncologist LGBT-competence is associated with unmet needs. Implications for Psychosocial Providers: Our results suggest the need for LGBT competency training for providers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".