MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388195908 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2023.1246844

Psychosocial needs of post-radiotherapy cancer survivors and their direct caregivers – a systematic review

2023· review· en· W4388195908 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ka Hei Man, Hkw Law, Shing Yau Tam

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHong Kong Polytechnic UniversityFederation for the Humanities and Social Sciences
KeywordsPsychosocialRadiation therapyMedicinePsycho-oncologyCancerPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiotherapy is an important modality for cancer treatment. About 50% of cancer patients receive radiotherapy, and one-third of radiotherapy recipients were identified as having unmet psychosocial needs. The unmet psychosocial needs worsen the patient's quality of life and treatment effectiveness. This review aims to identify the psychosocial needs of post-radiotherapy cancer survivors and their direct caregivers. Systematic research of Embase, Scopus and PubMed was done and 17 studies were selected for analysis. The results show that patients encounter distress and fear due to treatment immobilization and unfamiliarity with procedures respectively. Information provision is a common need raised by patients and caregivers. Patients and caregivers report relationship problems due to affected sexual functions. To facilitate future studies, solutions to each identified psychosocial need are proposed in the discussion based on the 17 selected papers and other supporting literature. This review proposes art therapy to alleviate psychological distress, and pre-treatment information sessions to reinforce information delivery. Creative interventions such as a sexual rehabilitation program are recommended. Future studies are warranted to examine the interventions and thus improve the patients' and caregivers' well-being.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.329 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207