Patient experiences in high-grade gliomas: from symptoms to radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Little is known in the literature about felt experience and supportive care needs of patients with new diagnosis of adult-type diffuse gliomas Central Nervous System WHO grades 3 and 4. The purpose of this study is to influence clinicians' attitudes and facilitate the referral process and the development of support services by better understanding the patient's journey. METHODS: Adult patients with a new histopathological diagnosis of high-grade glioma, who underwent radiotherapy, participated in a semistructured, face-to-face interview. Different segments of the patient's journey were explored focusing on patient's emotions, interactions with healthcare providers, satisfaction during the process and access to supports. Descriptive thematic analysis in the tradition of grounded theory was performed. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were interviewed, and four themes were emerged from the analysis. First, information conveyed by the medical team was frequently disconnected from patients' understanding regarding diagnosis and treatment. Second, specific events created a lasting impression that the medical system, and at times medical care providers, lacked empathy. Third, patients' perceptions of shortcomings within the medical system led to decreased trust, particularly regarding the follow-up process. Finally, although respondents identified multiple inadequacies during their journey, they nonetheless acknowledged the great support and quality of services they received. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides insight into patients' experiences and perceived shortcomings of the medical system, from the time of presentation until the end of radiotherapy treatment in patients with new diagnosis of high-grade glioma. These findings should influence clinicians' attitudes and guide systematic changes including delivery of information and the referral process.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".