“In My Mind, It Was Just Temporary”: A Qualitative Study of the Impacts of Cancer on Men and Their Strategies to Cope
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals who are diagnosed and treated for cancer use a variety of strategies to manage its impacts. However, there is currently a lack of research on men’s experience with managing cancer impacts, which is necessary to better support them throughout the cancer care continuum. This study explored the experience of men diagnosed with cancer, focusing on the impacts of the illness and its treatment and men’s strategies to cope. A qualitative descriptive design was used. Thirty-one men ( M age = 52.7 [26–82] years) diagnosed with various cancer types were recruited to take part in individual telephone interviews ( n = 14) or online focus groups ( n = 17) addressing the impacts of cancer and strategies they used to cope with these impacts. Directed content analysis was performed, using Fitch’s (2008) supportive care framework to guide the analysis. Cancer impacts and strategies used to cope were classified into six categories: physical, psychological, interpersonal, informational, practical, and spiritual. Results indicate that the cancer experience is diverse and multifaceted rather than homogeneous. Medical and supportive care services could be more effectively personalized to meet the diversity of men’s needs by adopting a comprehensive and holistic approach to supportive care. Working in partnership with patients, it appears promising to recognize and identify men’s needs and match them to appropriate resources to provide truly supportive care.
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 | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".