Patient-Reported Outcome Measures of Psychosocial Quality of Life in Oropharyngeal Cancer Patients: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OPSCC) patients are burdened by the effect of the disease process and treatment toxicities on organs important in everyday activities, such as breathing, speaking, eating, and drinking. There is a rise in OPSCC due to human papilloma virus (HPV)-associated OPSCC, affecting younger and healthier patients and with a better overall prognosis. Emphasis must be shared between oncologic outcomes and the effects on quality of life. While there have been efforts to study global and physical quality of life, the impact on psychosocial quality of life has not yet been specifically reviewed. Methods: A scoping review methodology was employed to explore the emotional, social, and mental quality of life in OPSCC patients and determine the impact of HPV status or treatment modalities. Results: Eighty-seven full-text articles were evaluated for eligibility. Fifteen articles met final inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies were conducted in the United States (n = 10) and study methodology was divided between cross-sectional (n = 6), prospective (n = 5), and retrospective studies (n = 4). Four psychosocial quality of life themes were explored: the impact on mental health and emotional wellbeing, social wellbeing and function, stress, and relationship and sexual behavior. Eighteen different patient-reported outcome measures were used, including both general head and neck oncology questionnaires and symptom-specific surveys. Conclusion: There is a paucity of research regarding the effect of OPSCC on patients’ psychosocial quality of life. Learning more about this component of quality of life can guide outreach programs and multidisciplinary involvement in improving patient care.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".