Coping Strategies Used by Older Cancer Survivors During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The objective of this study is to longitudinally examine the coping strategies used by older cancer survivors (≥60 years of age) during COVID-19. Methods: An interpretive descriptive approach was used to collect and analyse qualitative data collected via 1:1 telephone interviews at three timepoints: June/July 2020, January 2021, and March 2021. Main Findings: Coping strategies used by older adults reflected the resources available to them, and their agency in self-triaging and deciding on resources to support their coping. These decisions were impacted by pandemic-imposed restrictions and necessitated readjustment over time. Three themes were developed to describe coping strategies (including any changes): adapting means and methods to connect with others; being intentional about outlook; and taking actions toward a brighter future. Conclusion: Older adults used a variety of coping strategies, though their reliance on resources beyond themselves (e.g., family/friends) indicates a need to add tailored resources to existing professional services.
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 | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".