The Importance of Humour in Oncology: A Survey of Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Humour has long been considered an important coping tool for patients with cancer, but published quantitative data about its significance are limited. The purpose of our study was to survey patients with cancer undergoing radiotherapy regarding their opinions about the use of humour in their care. Methods: An anonymous 35-item questionnaire evaluating the patient experience, including the value of humour, was developed by an interdisciplinary team of health care providers (hcps) working within the Radiation Medicine program. This anonymous, voluntary, paper-based survey for self-completion required approximately 10 minutes to finish and was administered during the fall of 2018 and the spring of 2019. Results: For the 199 patients who completed the survey [108 women, 89 men (2 respondents did not specify)], median age was 68 years. That group represents approximately 30%-35% of the patients on treatment during the study period. Almost all respondents (86%) indicated that, during their visits to the cancer centre, it was "somewhat important" or "very important" for health care providers (hcps) to use appropriate humour, and 61% of respondents indicated using humour "frequently" or "always" when dealing with their individual cancers. Most respondents (79%) said that humour decreased anxiety, and 86% indicated that laughing was considered "somewhat important" or "very important." Approximately 4% of respondents even listed "sense of humour" as being the most important quality that they looked for in their interactions with their hcps. Conclusions: Cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy clearly view humour as being important for coping and dealing with their disease, and oncology hcps should routinely consider incorporating the use of appropriate humour into the care that they provide.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".