The “sphere of care”: A qualitative study of colorectal cancer patient and caregiver experiences of support within the cancer treatment setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Colorectal cancer is associated with considerable physical and psychosocial burden. Whilst social support is known to facilitate psychological adjustment to cancer, patients' and caregivers' experiences of social support within a treatment setting and their perceptions of the role of the treating team in providing this support is unknown. Specifically, there is a gap in the research that explores in detail who people affected by colorectal cancer consider to be supportive, and the function, timing and nature of this support, whilst receiving treatment. This study explored both patients' and caregivers' a) experiences of social support and how this relates to their experience of treatment; and b) what facilitates support in the treatment setting. METHODS: Individual interviews (N = 20) were conducted with patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer and caregivers of such patients. Audiotaped interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using the framework method. RESULTS: Three major themes emerged from the data: a) treating team as a source of support, highlighting the importance of connection with the treating team; b) changes in existing social supports, encompassing issues regarding distance in interpersonal relationships as a consequence of cancer; and c) differing dimensions of support, exploring the significance of shared experience, practical, financial, and emotional support. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and caregivers perceived the treating team as a major source of support. Support from the treating team was particularly important in the context of the changes that occur as a result of a diagnosis of colorectal cancer and the effects of subsequent treatment. Incidental support from others encountered in the treatment setting was also experienced and was equally important to both patients and caregivers. This has implications for the way health care professionals respond to both patients and caregivers in the treatment setting in terms of communication, interventions and environment.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".