Patient-reported care domains that enhance the experience of “being known” in an ambulatory cancer care centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study explored patients' perceptions of "being known" in an ambulatory chemotherapy unit. METHODS: Using a qualitative descriptive design, 10 participants with various cancer diagnoses were recruited from a large cancer centre in Montreal, Quebec. Audiotaped individual interviews were transcribed verbatim. Textual data were coded and analyzed thematically. FINDINGS: Participants spoke of their need to have the staff approach them as individuals first and then as persons with cancer. They further underscored the importance of: (1) feeling truly welcome in the cancer care environment, (2) being provided with person- and situation-responsive care, and (3) considering occupational and social roles that go beyond the "sick role". Mutual patient-nurse disclosure also contributed to perceptions of a personalized care approach. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: In addition to key elements construed as crucial for enhancing perceptions of being known, future studies should further document how the interplay among demographic, physical/psychological, and cultural factors affect these perceptions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".