The Process of Self-Management: A Qualitative Case Study Reporting on Cancer Survivors’ and Program Staff’s Experiences Within One Self-Management Support Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Cancer survivors must manage a range of adverse symptoms and side effects postdiagnosis. These effects often co-occur with preexisting comorbid conditions. Recognizing the complex chronicity of the disease, self-management support interventions have been developed to promote cancer survivors’ knowledge, skills, and confidence to self-manage their health. Though shown to be beneficial, the processes underlying self-management have yet to be explicated. Aim. To explore how a community-based self-management support intervention fosters cancer survivors’ knowledge, confidence, and skills to self-manage their health. Method. A qualitative case study adopting multiple viewpoints was utilized. Seventeen cancer survivors who participated in a self-management support intervention (referred to as a cancer coaching program) were interviewed and six program staff took part in a focus group. Transcripts from the interviews and focus group were analyzed using a hybrid inductive–deductive approach guided by principles of qualitative description. Results. Cancer survivors and program staff offered complementary perspectives that enhanced our understanding of how the self-management support intervention fosters cancer survivors’ knowledge, confidence, and skills to self-manage their health. Four themes captured strategies necessary to promote self-management: (1) looking beyond the disease: the importance of holistic person-centered care, (2) cocreating plans: the key to effective and meaningful self-management support, (3) fostering activation via tailored, targeted, and expert-sourced information and resources, and (4) having dependable and impartial emotional support. Within each theme, pertinent self-management support strategies were described by cancer survivors and program staff. Discussion and Conclusion. Findings offer an understanding of how one community-based self-management support intervention promotes self-management and highlight valuable self-management support strategies that could be incorporated into existing and future interventions.
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 | 0.017 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 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".