Experiences of People with Cancer from Rural and Remote Areas of Western Australia Using Supported Accommodation in Perth While Undergoing Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the study was to explore the lived experiences of people diagnosed with cancer from rural and remote areas of Western Australia, who utilise supported accommodation services whilst undergoing treatment in the capital city (Perth). Methods A qualitative phenomenological approach was used in this study. Ten participants were recruited using purposive sampling, who were aged between 35-65 years, were diagnosed with cancer within the previous three months and used accommodation services within the past 12 months. Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with a duration of approximately 45-60 min via Zoom, FaceTime or phone call. Interview data was transcribed, thematically analysed and coded into relevant themes. Results: Three overarching themes were derived from the interviews-"It's harder to have cancer when you have to relocate for treatment," "The paradoxical experience of staying at the accommodation," and "Feeling grateful for the support offered'. Conclusions: People diagnosed with cancer who have to relocate during treatment require emotional, logistical, and social supports. Cancer accommodation services are essential in enabling individuals to continue engaging in meaningful occupations and maintain their quality of life. Our study highlights the need for cancer accommodation services to consider the complex needs of individuals completing treatment for cancer in locations away from their usual homes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".