Routine follow‐up care for head and neck cancer after curative treatment: A 3‐year experience of measuring patients' self‐reported needs, preferences, quality of life and attitudes towards follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and describe attitudes, quality of life (Qol), needs and preferences of patients with head and neck cancer after 3 years of follow-up care. METHODS: This is an exploratory prospective study of recurrence-free patients. Survey results were compared between 1-, 2- and 3-year post-treatment and by disease characteristics. RESULTS: A total of 116 patients were included with 46% oropharyngeal cancer, 66% early stage disease and 41% having had surgery. After 3 years, most patients reported good to excellent health (88%), however expressed uncertainty regarding recurrence (66%), multiple needs (information on prognosis 91%, long-term sequalae 72%) and wanted to continue with follow-up (96%). Few changes were observed over time, with exceptions. Patients with more advanced disease, oral cancer or who had surgery experienced declining Qol (p < 0.050). Women experienced improvements in Qol domains (pain p = 0.028, speech p = 0.009) over time. Attitudes towards communication with oncologists demonstrated improved patient comfort (p = 0.044) over the 3 years; however, patients' beliefs about their prognosis did not (71% vs. 73% vs. 77% did not believe they were cured, p = 0.581). CONCLUSION: Although patients' needs, preferences and attitudes towards follow-up did not change drastically, important needs persist. This work supports identifying individual patient needs and the challenges in addressing prognostic expectations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".