The Connections Between Work, Prostate Cancer Screening, Diagnosis, and the Decision to Undergo Radical Prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prostate cancer diagnosis can occur at a time when men's work and careers are central to their masculine identity, sense of purpose, and family life. In Canada, an aging male population, along with medical advances, has resulted in increasing numbers of working men being diagnosed with, and treated for, prostate cancer. Little is known about the linkages between men's work and their experiences of prostate cancer. In this qualitative study, 24 Western Canadian men were interviewed to distil the connections between work, prostate cancer screening, diagnosis, and the decision to undergo radical prostatectomy. Data were analyzed using constant comparison in the context of masculinities theory. The findings demonstrated that work was central to men's masculine identities and afforded financial security, social status, and a sense of personal growth. However, work-related strain and demands were also found to affect participants' health and distance them from their families. A diagnosis of prostate cancer tended to diminish the importance of work, wherein participants focused on optimizing their health and strengthening family relations. In deciding on radical prostatectomy as a treatment to eradicate prostate cancer, few men considered the implications for returning to work. The current study findings indicate that clinicians and patients should explicitly explore and discuss how surgery side effects may affect work and career plans during treatment decision-making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".