Self-reliance, Social Norms, and Self-stigma as Barriers to Psychosocial Help-Seeking Among Rural Cancer Survivors With Cancer-Related Distress: Qualitative Interview Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Even when technology allows rural cancer survivors to connect with supportive care providers from a distance, uptake of psychosocial referrals is low. Fewer than one-third of participants in a telemedicine intervention for identifying rural survivors with high distress and connecting them with care accepted psychosocial referral. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this research was to examine the reasons for which rural cancer survivors did not accept a psychosocial referral. METHODS: We utilized a qualitative design to address the research purpose. We interviewed participants who had been offered psychosocial referral. Semistructured interviews were conducted 6 weeks later (n=14), and structured interviews were conducted 9 months later (n=6). Data were analyzed descriptively using an inductive approach. RESULTS: Ultimately, none of the rural cancer survivors (0/14, 0%) engaged with a psychosocial care provider, including those who had originally accepted referrals (0/4, 0%) for further psychosocial care. When explaining their decisions, survivors minimized their distress, emphasizing their self-reliance and the need to handle distress on their own. They expressed a preference for dealing with distress via informal support networks, which was often limited to close family members. No survivors endorsed public stigma as a barrier to accepting psychosocial help, but several suggested that self-stigma associated with not being able to handle their own distress was a reason for not seeking care. CONCLUSIONS: Rural cancer survivors' willingness to accept a psychosocial referral may be mediated by the rural cultural norm of self-reliance and by self-stigma. Interventions to address referral uptake may benefit from further illumination of these relationships as well as a strength-based approach that emphasizes positive aspects of the rural community and individual self-affirmation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".