Perspectives of Health Care Professionals on Multimodal Interventions for Cancer Cachexia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Holistic multimodal interventions have not been established for cancer cachexia. The beliefs and perceptions of health care professionals (HCPs) based on their experiences influence the interventions. Objectives: HCPs' knowledge, perceptions, and practices in cancer cachexia management were evaluated. Design/Setting/Subjects/Measurements: A nationwide questionnaire survey was conducted that focused on the perspectives of HCPs on interventions in 451 designated cancer hospitals across Japan. Descriptive statistics were applied. Results: Among 2255 participants, 1320 responded (58.5%), and 1188 in 258 institutes were included in the analysis. The current international definition of cancer cachexia is not commonly known and recent clinical practice guidelines have not been widely adopted. More than 50% of participants considered ≥5% weight loss in six months and ECOG PS (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status) 2-4 to be cancer cachexia, whereas 50% answered that there was no relationship between life expectancy and cancer cachexia. Participants tended to consider it important to initiate nutritional and exercise interventions before cancer cachexia becomes apparent. The majority of participants recognized the importance of holistic multimodal interventions, particularly for the management of physical and psychological symptoms; however, only 20% reported that they educated patients and families. Furthermore, 33% of participants considered themselves to have provided patients and families with sufficient nutritional and exercise interventions and evidence-based information. Conclusion: The results reveal that HCPs are not regularly providing education and emotional support to patients and families suffering from cancer cachexia. The results also show the need for education for HCPs to enhance implementation of holistic multimodal interventions for cancer cachexia.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".