Long-term impact of aerodigestive symptoms on adults with oesophageal cancer: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The impact of long-term aerodigestive symptoms following oesophageal cancer surgery is still not well understood. This study aimed to qualitatively understand the long-term impact of aerodigestive symptoms on quality of life in adults post-oesophagectomy. METHOD: Participants who received curative transhiatal/transthoracic surgery for oesophageal cancer in Ireland's National Oesophageal Cancer Centre were invited to attend semi-structured interviews. Surgery had to be completed at least 12 months prior. Reflexive thematic analysis was conducted. RESULT: Forty participants were interviewed individually face-to-face. Four key themes were identified: (a) isolation, reflecting the reported solitude experienced by oesophageal cancer survivors when attempting to manage their ongoing aerodigestive symptoms; (b) fear, including fear of choking and fear that dysphagia symptoms may indicate recurrence of oesophageal cancer; (c) altered work capacity, caused by ongoing aerodigestive symptoms; and (d) avoidance of social situations involving food, due to the pain, discomfort, and embarrassment caused by these symptoms. CONCLUSION: Oesophageal cancer treatment can be lifesaving, however, such medical interventions can result in distressing physiological aerodigestive symptoms throughout survivorship, which can significantly impact quality of life. Our findings indicate a need for greater community support to manage aerodigestive symptoms and reduce the impact these have on quality of life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".