Learning through the experience of cancer survivorship: differences across age groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe challenges that contribute to experiential learning among cancer survivors across different age groups. RESEARCH APPROACH: Qualitative collaborative study. PARTICIPANTS: 27 cancer survivors. METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH: Participants were invited to explain the after-cancer challenges they learned from during six focus groups. Five were organized by age-group (15-18, 19-34, 35-44, 45-59, ≥ 60) and a mixed group was held to ensure the co-construction of findings with participants. Inductive content analysis was performed. FINDINGS: While learning to live with a chronic disease, participant's experiential learning appeared through four challenges: Searching for one's identity, Autonomy, Disruption of social roles and responsibilities, Reclaiming one's life. Particular aspects of challenges were identified across ages-groups and life courses. INTERPRETATION: Results indicate that psychosocial and health professionals should be sensitive to the fact that life courses are now diverse and not always associated with biological age. This has the potential to improve care by informing how these challenges affect the experience of cancer survivorship over time.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".