Assessing the Efficacy of a 28-Day Comprehensive Online Prostate Cancer Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) in Facilitating Engagement of Prostate Cancer Patients in Their Survivorship Care: A Qualitative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 28-day Prostate Cancer-Patient Empowerment Program (PC-PEP) developed through patient engagement was successful at promoting mental and physical health. Thirty prostate cancer patients from Halifax, Canada participated in the 28-day PC-PEP intervention in early 2019. PC-PEP encompassed daily patient education and empowerment videos, prescribed physical activities (including pelvic floor exercises), a mostly plant-based diet, stress reduction techniques, intimacy education, social connection, and support. Quantitative exit surveys and semi-structured interviews (conducted in focus groups of ten) were used to assess perceived factors that facilitated or impeded adherence to the program. The program received high praise from the patients and was deemed extremely useful by the participating men, who rated it 9 out of 10. Patients expressed that the multifaceted, online, home-based nature of the program helped them adhere to it better than they would have had to a single or less comprehensive intervention. Feedback from the participants indicated that the program, when viewed as a whole, was perceived as greater than the sum of its individual parts. Furthermore, the program addressed various issues, including emotional vulnerability and distress, physical fitness, urinary incontinence, challenges in expressing emotions, perceived lack of control over healthcare decisions, emotional fragility, and hesitancy to discuss prostate cancer-related matters in social settings. Patients highly (9.6/10) endorsed integrating the program into the standard care regimen from the very beginning of diagnosis. However, challenges such as work commitments were noted. Patients' high endorsement of PC-PEP suggests that its implementation into the standard of care from day one of diagnosis may be warranted.
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 | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".