Psychological Distress and Concerns of In-Home Older People Living with Cancer and Their Impact on Supportive Care Needs: An Observational Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Cancer patients are experiencing psychological problems after diagnosis, such as emotional distress and social anxiety, which may increase their demands for emotional and supportive care. This study aimed to assess the influence of both emotional distress and concerns on the supportive care needs of cancer patients receiving home-based healthcare. (2) Methods: In this door-to-door screening program, 97 cancer patients were approached, with a mean age of 73 years old (mean = 73.43; SD = 6.60). (3) Results: As expected, 42.3% of patients highlighted their treatment as their main psychological priority, with 20.6% identifying concerns about the future of their family in this regard. No significant associations with respect to sex were identified in terms of focus, though females reported the need for more frequent psychological support (58.7% vs. 37.3%, respectively, p = 0.035) compared to males. Patients who had experienced an increased number of concerns during the last weeks (IRR = 1.02; 95% CI: 1.00–1.03, p = 0.007) had a significantly greater risk of presenting an increased rate of supportive care needs. Notably, male patients with bone cancer presented a significantly greater number of supportive care needs (mean rank 45.5 vs. 9.0, p = 0.031) respectively, in comparison to those with other types of cancer. (4) Conclusions: Supportive care needs arise from a greater concern and specific type of cancer, highlighting the need for supportive care, such as psychosocial and psychological support. This may have significant implications for treatment and patient outcomes in home care settings.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".