Exploring the reasons cancer survivors do not seek help for their concerns: a descriptive content analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand reasons why adult cancer survivors do not seek assistance as they transition from the end of cancer treatment to follow-up care. Understanding these reasons should inform survivorship care, help reduce the burden of suffering and increase quality of life for survivors. METHODS: A national survey was conducted in collaboration with ten Canadian provinces to identify unmet needs and experiences with follow-up for cancer survivors between one and 3 years post-treatment. The survey included open-ended questions to allow respondents to add topics of importance and details that offered a deeper insight into their experiences. This publication presents the analysis of the quantitative data and open-ended responses regarding reasons why the adult cancer population does not seek help with their concerns. RESULTS: In total, 13 319 respondents answered the question about seeking help. 87% had a physical concern of which 76% did not seek help; 77% had an emotional concern of which 82% did not seek help; and 45% had a practical concern of which 71% did not seek help. Frequently identified reasons for not seeking help included being told it was normal and not thinking anything could be done, not wanting to ask, not thinking services were available, handling it on their own and not thinking it was serious enough to seek help. CONCLUSIONS: Survivors have multiple reasons for not seeking help for their concerns. These findings can be useful to healthcare providers in proactively identifying and addressing the needs of these survivors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".