Cancer survivors 75 years and older: physical, emotional and practical needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe physical, emotional and practical concerns and access to help of Canadian cancer survivors aged 75+ years following treatment. METHODS: A survey was designed to identify concerns and access to help across three supportive care domains for cancer survivors 1-3 years post-treatment. Random samples were drawn from 10 provincial cancer registries. Survey packages were mailed to 40 790 survivors with option to reply by mail or online in French or English. Descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: In total, 3274 (25%) survivors aged 75+ years responded to the survey. Fifty-five per cent were men, 72% had not experienced metastatic spread and 75% reported comorbid conditions. Eighty-one per cent reported experiencing at least one physical concern, 63% experienced at least one emotional concern and 30% experienced at least one practical concern. The most commonly reported concerns were for two physical changes (fatigue 62% and bladder/urinary problems 39%) and one emotional change (anxiety/fear of recurrence 53%). More than 50% did not receive assistance for 15 concerns across the three domains. The most frequently cited reason for not seeking help for a concern was that they were told it was normal and they did not think anything could be done. Unmet needs existed for all physical, emotional and practical changes ranging from 41% to 88% of respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Many older adults are at risk for experiencing physical, emotional and practical concerns following cancer treatment yet are not obtaining help. Action is needed for early identification of these individuals to mitigate the impact of unmet needs for older cancer 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".