Empowering Cancer Survivors in Managing Their Own Health: A Paradoxical Dynamic Process of Taking and Letting Go of Control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In cancer care, gaps in support to help patients manage and live with the side-effects from cancer treatments have increased the emphasis on empowering patients to be more active and involved in managing their own health. However, empowerment in relation to promoting self-management behaviors is not well understood. Using the social constructivist grounded theory approach, our goal was to develop a theoretical understanding of this phenomenon in relation to the self-management behaviors of post-treatment cancer patients. Twenty-two post-treatment cancer patients participated in a semi-structured focused interview to co-construct with us how empowerment is defined, described, and experienced in relation to their capacity to self-manage. Through this co-construction, we defined empowerment as a process of personal growth, a display of fortitude and strength when participants confronted the impact of their illness that emerged in two dynamic and paradoxical ways: 1) establishing control over the impact of the illness as a means to maintain normalcy and to circumvent change over an eroding and changing sense of self and 2) relinquishing control over aspects of the illness deemed irrepressible and acknowledging and accepting change. When successful at establishing and/or relinquishing control, participants no longer viewed cancer as a threat, but re-interpreted their illness as also having a beneficial "empowering" experience and more capable of managing. Findings will guide the development of self-management interventions that use empowerment as a core construct.
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 | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".