MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3009787859 · doi:10.1177/1090198120902029

The Process of Self-Management: A Qualitative Case Study Reporting on Cancer Survivors’ and Program Staff’s Experiences Within One Self-Management Support Intervention

2020· article· en· W3009787859 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Brunet, Amanda Wurz, Deeksha Srivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Education & Behavior · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryInstitut du Savoir MontfortOttawa HospitalMontfort HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-managementIntervention (counseling)Qualitative researchPsychologyProcess (computing)Program evaluationMedical educationMedicineNursingGerontologySociologyPolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.394 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Education & BehaviorSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207