Using the Delphi Method to Elucidate Patient and Caregiver Experiences of Cancer Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Identify the most salient elements of the head and neck cancer (HNC) care experience described by patients and caregivers in focus group interviews. Methods: Three focus groups of patients and caregivers were facilitated by research assistants and clinicians. Open-ended guiding questions captured/elicited aspects of care that were appreciated, warranted improvement, or enhanced communication and information. A four-step Delphi process derived consensus among focus group facilitators (n = 5) regarding salient discussion points from focus group conversations. Results: Seven salient themes were identified: (1) information provision, (2) burden related to symptoms and treatment side effects, (3) importance of social support, (4) quality of care at both hospital and provider levels, (5) caring for the person, not just treating cancer, (6) social and emotional impact of HNC, and (7) stigma and insufficient information regarding human papillomavirus-related HNC. Conclusion: Participants reported varying needs and support preferences, a desire for individualized communication, and to feel cared for as both a person and a patient. Findings illuminate the intricate details underlying high-quality, compassionate, person-centered HNC cancer care.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".