Exploring the Experiences of Cancer Patients With Chemotherapy-Induced Ototoxicity: Qualitative Study Using Online Health Care Forums
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many cancer patients and survivors experience permanent and life-debilitating effects, such as ototoxicity, from treatment. Ototoxicity manifests as high-frequency hearing loss and tinnitus, which can have a detrimental effect on the quality of life (QoL) of those affected. Currently, there is little information and support offered to these patients who experience ototoxicity, potentially leading to many being undiagnosed and untreated. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore the extent of ototoxic side effects, such as hearing loss and tinnitus, and their impact on cancer patients following chemotherapy treatment. Secondary objectives included detecting the time periods of onset and duration of the ototoxicity and identifying what support was available to this population. METHODS: Posts from publicly available online forums were thematically analyzed using the guidelines by Braun and Clarke. A coding manual was iteratively developed to create a framework for the analysis of the ototoxicity experience among the cancer population. RESULTS: A total of 9 relevant online forums were identified, consisting of 86 threads and 570 posts from 377 members. Following the bottom-up thematic analysis, 6 major themes were identified: nature of ototoxicity, time of experienced ototoxicity, information on ototoxicity, quality of life, therapies, and online social support. CONCLUSIONS: There was a significant number of reports expressing concerns about the lack of information on the risk of ototoxicity. More support for those suffering is needed; for example, improved interdepartmental communication between oncology and audiology services could optimize patient care. Patients should also be encouraged to communicate with their health care professionals about their ototoxicity and relay how their QoL is impacted by ototoxicity when accessing support. Tinnitus was the most common concern and was associated with distress. Hearing loss was less common; however, it was associated with fear and employment issues. Those who reported preexisting conditions were fearful about worsening their condition as their QoL was already impacted.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".