Cancer Survivors' Experiences With and Preferences for Medical Information Disclosure and Advance Care Planning: An Online Survey Among Indonesian Cancer Support Groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To understand the experiences and preferences of Indonesian cancer survivors regarding medical information disclosure and advance care planning. METHODS: On the basis of systematic reviews of the scientific literature, qualitative studies, and expert-panel input, we developed an online survey that was distributed to nine cancer survivor support groups in Indonesia. RESULTS: A total of 1,030 valid responses were received. Most participants were younger than 60 years (92%), female (91%), married (78%), Muslim (75%), diagnosed with breast cancer (68%), highly educated (64%), and more than one year beyond diagnosis of their cancer. If diagnosed with a life-limiting illness, participants wished to be informed about their diagnosis (74%), disease severity (61%), estimated curability (81%), expected disease trajectory (66%), and estimated life expectancy (37%). Between 46%-69% of the participants wished to discuss four topics of advance care planning (end-of-life treatments, resuscitation, health care proxies, and what matters at the end of life); 21%-42% had done so. Of those who wished to discuss these topics, 36%-79% preferred to do so with their family members. The most important reasons for not being willing to engage in advance care planning were the desire to surrender to God's will and to focus on here and now. CONCLUSION: In a group of cancer survivors, most of them were highly educated, young, female, and diagnosed with breast cancer. Their preferences for medical information and advance care planning varied, with the majority wishing for information and involvement in advance care planning. Culturally sensitive advance care planning involves health care professionals eliciting individuals' preferences for medical information disclosure and discussing different topics in advance care planning conversations.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".