Profiling adolescents and young adults impacted by a parent's malignant cancer diagnosis in Western Australia: Utilising data linkage to inform supportive care planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Purpose:Lung cancer is the second leading form of cancer,resulting in more deaths annually than breast, prostate, and colorectalcancers combined. Despite this, there is limited understanding of specificpsychosocial needs for this population. Empirical evidence indicates thatlung cancer patients have a greater need for social support due toreduced mobility and potential accelerated decline in overall health sta-tus. This investigation explored the relationship between social supportand psychological functioning among lung cancer patients.Methods:Lung cancer patients (N = 131) at several national cancercenters across the USA were surveyed as part of their routine intakeon their psychological well‐being (e.g., Behavioral Health Status(BHS) Scale) and various domains of social support. The sampleconsisted of 70 males and 61 females ranging in age from 38 to 89(mean = 63, SD = 13.66). Results:The regression modeling indicated that the predictorsexplained 42% of the total variation in BHS scores (R2= .423,F(9,121) = 9.849,p< .001). Four of seven domains of social support wereshown to be related to significant change in psychological well‐being.Specifically, patients who reported having friends/family to help witheveryday responsibilities (β= 7.45,p= .025) and those who reportedreceiving advice from others (β= 4.314,p= .019) were found to havebetter overall BHS scores. On the other hand, higher levels of emo-tional support from others (β=−7.115,p< .001) and people that theycould count on to help with medical treatment (β=−9.193,p= .007)were related to poorer outcomes. Age and gendered showed no statis-tically significant differences in BHS scores.Conclusions and Implications:Consistent with the literature, socialsupport factors influence psychological functioning among lung cancerpatients. Current findings indicate that the relationship between thesefactors is complex. Due to the high symptom burden associated withlung cancer patients, the importance of identifying specific social sup-port needs is critical for improved quality of life.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".