Psychosocial and supportive care needs of individuals with advanced myeloma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this qualitative study is to understand, from the patient's perspective, their experience of living with advanced multiple myeloma, the psychosocial impact, and needs for support in managing and adapting to this illness. Methods: An interpretive descriptive approach was used. Individual semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with each participant, which focused on eliciting their descriptions of psychosocial issues and concerns, as well as the supports they use for coping with cancer. Transcripts were analyzed using interpretive description, resulting in the generation of common themes that represented the data. Results: The sample comprised twelve adults with a diagnosis of advanced multiple myeloma who had undergone at least three lines of treatment or were transfusion dependent. All participants were receiving ambulatory care for their myeloma in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Four themes were generated: (1) confusion about the diagnosis and treatment options; (2) challenges in finding relevant information; (3) dealing with the chronicity of treatment side effects; (4) social support as critical for coping with the life-threat of multiple myeloma. Conclusion: Findings suggest that the psychosocial impact of living with advanced multiple myeloma is greatly impacted by one's ability to understand the complexities of the diagnosis and access supports to cope with its physical and emotional consequences. Clinical interventions specifically tailored to meeting the information and support needs of this population are needed.
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 | 0.001 | 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".