Awareness of and preference for disease prognosis and participation in treatment decisions among advanced cancer patients in Myanmar: Results from the APPROACH study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To investigate prognostic awareness, preference for prognostic information, and perceived and preferred roles in decision making among patients with advanced cancer in Myanmar. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered at the Yangon General Hospital to stage 4 cancer patients who were at least 21 years old and aware of their cancer diagnosis. Patients were asked questions about their prognosis, participation in treatment decisions, sociodemographic and clinical information. Data from 131 patients were analyzed using descriptive statistics and logistic regressions. RESULTS: Only 15% of patients surveyed were aware that their cancer was advanced and only a quarter (26%) of patients knew that treatment intent was noncurative. The likelihood of treatment-intent awareness was higher among patients who were male, high income, and aware that they had advanced cancer. Roughly 60% of patients reported playing an active or collaborative role in treatment decisions, with a strong preference (59%) for the latter. For the majority of patients (69%), perceived and preferred roles in decision making were the same. Sociodemographic characteristics did not predict perceived and preferred roles in decision making. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first effort to analyze prognostic awareness and decision-making practices among advanced cancer patients in Myanmar. Patients had inadequate knowledge on their disease progression and intent of treatment. Yet, the majority of them were keen to be involved in treatment decisions.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".