Occupational therapy for people with mask anxiety undergoing radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Up to one third of people with head and neck cancer undergoing radiation therapy experience mask anxiety. However, there is limited literature guiding the role of health professionals, including occupational therapists, in managing mask anxiety. This study aimed to explore the content of occupational therapy interactions with people who have identified mask anxiety. METHODS: A cohort of 20 participants with identified mask anxiety engaged in semi-structured interviews with occupational therapists. Theoretical thematic analysis and the framework provided by the Canadian Model of Occupational Performance and Engagement (CMOP-E) were employed to explore the content of occupational therapy interactions with people experiencing mask anxiety. RESULTS: Theoretical thematic analysis identified 13 relevant themes with 49 codes relating to the interaction between participants and occupational therapists. Analysis of these interactions identified the occupational therapy role to be holistic and multifaceted. The cognitive, affective, and institutional components of the CMOP-E were dominantly explored by the occupational therapists with participants. Occupation, spirituality, and the cultural environment were either not addressed or minimally discussed with participants. CONCLUSION: The management of mask anxiety during radiation therapy is a novel area of practice for occupational therapists. The results of this study suggest that the occupational therapy profession explores a range of factors with the person undergoing radiation therapy with mask anxiety, and that the CMOP-E model can be used to guide these interactions. Future research is required to further define this role and its efficacy in managing mask anxiety.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".