MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379471523 · doi:10.2196/41594

Cancer Pain Experience Through the Lens of Patients and Caregivers: Mixed Methods Social Media Study

2023· article· en· W4379471523 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chiara Filipponi, Mariam Chichua, Marianna Masiero, Davide Mazzoni, Gabriella Pravettoni

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPain Management and Opioid Use
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistero della SaluteUniversità degli Studi di Milano
KeywordsPsychosocialSpouseCancer painSocial mediaDescriptive statisticsGriefRegretClinical psychologyCancerSocial supportMedicinePsychologyFamily caregiversPsychiatryGerontologyPsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Cancer pain represents a challenge for cancer patients and their family members. Despite progression in pain management, pain is still underreported and undertreated, and there is limited information on the related needs that patients and caregivers may have. Online platforms represent a fundamental tool for research to reveal the unmet needs of these users and their emotions outside the medical setting. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) reveal the unmet needs of both patients and caregivers and (2) detect the emotional activation associated with cancer pain by analyzing the textual patterns of both users. METHODS: A descriptive and quantitative analysis of qualitative data was performed in RStudio v.2022.02.3 (RStudio Team). We analyzed 679 posts (161 from caregivers and 518 from patients) published over 10 years on the "cancer" subreddit of Reddit to identify unmet needs and emotions related to cancer pain. Hierarchical clustering, and emotion and sentiment analysis were conducted. RESULTS: The language used for describing experiences related to cancer pain and expressed needs differed between patients and caregivers. For patients (agglomerative coefficient=0.72), the large cluster labeled unmet needs included the following clusters: (1A) reported experiences, with the subclusters (a) relationship with doctors/spouse and (b) reflections on physical features; and (1B) changes observed over time, with the subclusters (a) regret and (b) progress. For caregivers (agglomerative coefficient=0.80), the main clusters were as follows: (1A) social support and (1B) reported experiences, with the subclusters (a) psychosocial challenges and (b) grief. Moreover, comparison between the 2 groups (entanglement coefficient=0.28) showed that they shared a common cluster labeled uncertainty. Regarding emotion and sentiment analysis, patients expressed a significantly higher negative sentiment than caregivers (z=-2.14; P<.001). On the contrary, caregivers expressed a higher positive sentiment compared with patients (z=-2.26; P<.001), with trust (z=-4.12; P<.001) and joy (z=-2.03; P<.001) being the most prevalent positive emotions. CONCLUSIONS: Our study emphasized different perceptions of cancer pain in patients and caregivers. We revealed different needs and emotional activations in the 2 groups. Moreover, our study findings highlight the importance of considering caregivers in medical care. Overall, this study increases knowledge about the unmet needs and emotions of patients and caregivers, which may have important clinical implications in pain management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.363
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.350 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicPain Management and Opioid UseFrench-language works237,207