A Survey of Information Needs and Preferences of Patients With Head and Neck Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the information needs and preferences of patients who had human papillomavirus-associated head and neck cancer (HNC) and who were aged 18-65 years in the post-treatment phase of recovery. SAMPLE & SETTING: 205 patients who completed treatment for HNC at two large cancer centers in Western Canada. METHODS & VARIABLES: A self-administered survey was completed in paper or online format. Participants were asked about information considered most important, sources of information used during recovery, and sources considered most helpful. RESULTS: Participants wanted information on signs and symptoms of recurrence, cure rates, post-treatment rehabilitation, treatment and recovery time frames, and financial assistance. They identified healthcare providers as the most frequently used and helpful source of information, but also reported that the Internet was useful and that an online information resource would be helpful during recovery. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurses can provide more personalized information for survivors of HNC by contributing to the development of reliable Internet-based resources. The developers of these resources could also consider creating ways to directly link healthcare providers and survivors of HNC who are experiencing problems stemming from diagnosis and treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".