Improving community and healthcare services for young adults living with cancer: Suggestions from a multiple stakeholder workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives: Despite the availability of healthcare and community services dedicated to cancer survivors, these remain underutilized by young adults living with cancer (YAC; aged 18-39). A workshop was organized in Montréal, Canada, to identify the needs of YAC during their post-treatment transition period and explore existing services dedicated to YAC. Methods: We recruited seventeen stakeholders (N = 17), including seven YAC, to participate in a one-day workshop to consult about best approaches and practices to meet the needs of YAC, post-treatment. All discussions were transcribed, and a thematic qualitative analysis was performed. Results: Two main findings were identified: differences and similarities among stakeholders about perceptions of post-treatment needs; and suggestions to meet YAC needs following treatment. Conclusions: Results demonstrate the importance of collaboration among multiple stakeholders, including YAC, when designing services for YAC. Results include suggestions to improve services available through community or healthcare centres.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".