MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386369524 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30090590

Perspectives of Cancer Survivors with Low Income: A Content Analysis Exploring Concerns, Positive Experiences, and Suggestions for Improvement in Survivorship Care

2023· article· en· W4386369524 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Irene Nicoll, Gina Lockwood, Margaret I. Fitch

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCARE Canada
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsSurvivorship curveCancer survivorshipMedicineCancer survivorLow incomeCancerGerontologyNursingFamily medicinePsychologySocioeconomicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The number of cancer survivors in Canada has reached 1.5 million and is expected to grow. It is important to understand cancer survivors' perspectives about the challenges they face after treatment is completed. Many factors create barriers to accessing assistance, and limited income may be a significant one. This study is a secondary analysis of data from a publicly available databank (Cancer Survivor Transitions Study) regarding the experiences of Canadian cancer survivors. The goal was to explore major challenges, positive experiences, and suggestions for improvement in survivorship care for low-income Canadian cancer survivors one to three years following treatment. A total of 1708 survey respondents indicated a low annual household income (<$25,000 CD). A content analysis was performed utilizing written comments to open-ended questions. The major challenges respondents described focused on physical capacity limits and treatment side effects; positive experiences emphasized support and attentive care; and suggestions for improvements highlighted the need for better support, information about self-care and side effect management, and timely follow-up care. The relationships between household income and the management of survivors' physical, emotional, and practical concerns require consideration. The design of follow-up care plans, programs, services, and financial assessments of patients may prepare survivors for predictable issues and costs in their transition to survivorship.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.178

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.133
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→