The Experiences of Young Adults Living with Metastatic/Advanced Cancer: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is limited research on young adults (YAs) living with cancer and even less concerning those with metastatic/advanced disease. The purpose of this scoping review was to map and summarize the current state of empirical research on the psychosocial experiences of YAs living with metastatic/advanced cancer, highlighting gaps in the published literature. This study was guided by Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology. MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched in consultation with a medical research librarian, for English-language articles published until June 2018. Three key journals were hand-searched along with the first 100 hits on Google Scholar. In addition, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses was searched for dissertations published until February 2018. Two authors independently screened titles/abstracts to identify articles for full text review. Data were extracted on study characteristics and outcomes related to the guiding review question. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data and identify overarching themes. Summary statistics were reported. The search strategy retrieved 2846 published articles. After reviewing 47 in full text, 10 studies were eligible for inclusion. The results from the included studies fell into four themes: (1) search to make meaning of their illness; (2) patient-provider relationships; (3) mental health and psychosocial well-being; and (4) interventions. Research concerning the psychosocial experiences of YAs living with metastatic/advanced cancer is limited. The authors provide four recommendations as a starting point for further research. Understanding the patient experience is imperative for designing effective health policies, programs, and interventions for this population.
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 | 0.015 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".