<i>Reclaiming Self</i> <scp>‐Balancing</scp> on a Tightrope Across Time a grounded theory of transition to survivorship in older adult blood cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To develop a theoretical understanding of the transition to survivorship in older adult blood cancer survivors. DESIGN: Qualitative research employing Classic Glaserian Grounded Theory methods. METHODS: Purposive and theoretical sampling recruited 17 participants via Leukaemia & Lymphoma Society© Community webpages (65-83 years) from across the US and Canada. Data from individual semi-structured interviews using HIPPA-compliant Zoom© were analysed from September 2020 to March 2021. RESULTS: Participants' main concern was losing their sense of self and reclaiming self was the core category. The substantive theory of Reclaiming Self-Balancing on a Tightrope Across Time is a six-phase transition process to survivorship: receiving a blood cancer diagnosis, finding bearings, reclaiming self, persevering through, realizing a transition and living in a new reality. CONCLUSIONS: The transition to survivorship in older adult blood cancer survivors is a complex process because of age and disease type. IMPLICATIONS: Age-related aspects of one's sense of self and its relation to health, well-being and quality of life, as older adult blood cancer survivors advance into older age need further research. Ageism and its impact on cancer survivorship care in older adults should also be explored. IMPACT: What problem did the study address?: Existing theoretical frameworks do not explain the complex process of transition to survivorship for older adult blood cancer survivors. What were the main findings?: A substantive theory Reclaiming Self-Balancing on a Tightrope Across Time is a six-phase transition process from cancer diagnosis to survivorship characterized by an uncertain and liminal nature. Where and on whom will the research have an impact?: Understanding how older adults experience the transition to survivorship can inform age-appropriate person-centered nursing practices and healthcare policies specific to their needs. REPORTING METHOD: COREQ. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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 | 0.029 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".