The role of Internet cancer information for older adults with cancer: Perspectives of older adults and healthcare professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Older adults with cancer have unique information and supportive care needs. There is a growing body of literature regarding the use of Internet health information, but less is known about the use of the Internet for cancer information amongst older adults with cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of qualitative data from a mixed-methods study of the use of cancer-related Internet information amongst adults with cancer. In the present study, we include transcripts from two samples: 34 interviews with adults over age 55 (n = 17) with cancer, and interviews and focus groups with healthcare professionals (n = 21). Data were analysed using thematic analysis with an interest in age-related themes. RESULTS: Our findings are grouped into three main themes: (a) independently augmenting healthcare services and supports; (b) supporting and situating information; and (c) mobilising family and support networks. Patients and healthcare providers described cancer-related Internet information as a beneficial resource to address gaps in information and supplement information from healthcare professionals from diagnosis and throughout treatment. Older adults reported using cancer-related Internet information to manage their cancer experience, although sometimes feeling technologically hesitant. However, healthcare professionals felt older adults were less likely than younger patients to seek cancer information from the Internet. CONCLUSION: The use of cancer-related Internet information is growing amongst older adults with cancer. Older adults mobilise technology uniquely. Healthcare professionals can support these efforts by being aware and through initiating dialogue about information preferences.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".