Cancer knowledge and health-consciousness in childhood cancer survivors following transition into adult care—results from the ACCS project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Knowledge on chronic medical conditions in childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) is constantly growing and underlines that long-term follow-up (LTFU) care is often mandatory, also in adulthood. However, many CCSs discontinue follow-up care after transition to adult care. One reason might be that the current transition practices do not meet the needs of adolescent and young adult CCSs. We therefore aim to evaluate different transition models for Swiss CCSs by assessing their cancer knowledge, cancer worries, self-management skills, and expectations for LTFU care, following transition in two different hospital-based models. Methods: Within the Aftercare of Childhood Cancer Survivors (ACCS) study, we performed a questionnaire-based survey with a cross-sectional and longitudinal part. We included 5-year CCSs aged >16 years at recruitment who were transitioned to adult care in two hospitals between 2014 and 2021. Here, we report the results of the cross-sectional part. We compared the survivors' cancer knowledge with medical record data and assessed cancer worries (6 questions), self-management skills (15 questions), and expectations (12 questions) by validated scales. We used descriptive statistics, chi-squared test, and t-tests to describe the results. Results: We analyzed 57 CCSs (response rate 44%), 60% of those were female, had a median age of 9 years at diagnosis and 23 years at the questionnaire. Most CCSs recalled their diagnosis (95%) and exposure to treatment modalities (98%) correctly. CCSs worried the most about potential late effects (47%) and issues with having children in the future (44%). At least 75% of CCSs agreed to 12 of the 15 self-management questions, indicating high self-management skills. The top three expectations included that physicians know the survivors' cancer history, that visits start on time, and that physicians can always be called in case of questions. Conclusion: CCSs receiving hospital-based LTFU care have good cancer knowledge and high self-management skills. The identified worries and expectations will help to improve the LTFU care of CCSs who transition to adult care, to further inform and educate survivors and healthcare professionals about and might be relevant for other countries with a similar healthcare system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".