Development and Assessment of an Intervention Program for Unmet Supportive Care Needs of Canadian Melanoma Patients and Survivors Attending an Outpatient Clini
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ntroduction: The rapid development of melanoma treatment options has significantly improved overall survival, but complementary patient education is not available. An environmental scan confirmed a lack of formal educational programs and support groups in the Durham region. Objectives 1) Identify the supportive care needs of melanoma patients and survivors. 2) Develop an intervention program to address these needs. 3) Seek feedback on the program prior to implementation. Methods: Utilizing a cross-sectional mixed method design, patients were recruited both prospectively and retrospectively. Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and Supportive Care Needs Survey; those who consented attended a focus group. Statistical tests identified the highest reported needs and investigated any relationships with sociodemographic information. Focus group data was thematically analyzed. Results: 75 patients and survivors completed the questionnaires; 46 males and 29 females. Most acknowledged their needs were satisfied, however significant unmet needs were identified in three constructs: psychological, health system and information, and melanoma specific. Conclusion: Based on these identified high needs, a multifaceted program was developed to address the three constructs. Focus group feedback further reinforced the benefits of the intervention program. Currently the program is being reviewed for implementation and the intent is to complete a one-year post evaluation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".