Exploring the Experiences of Cancer Survivors and Their Caregivers Accessing Supportive Care Services in New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Supportive care services can reduce distress and improve quality of life for cancer survivors and their caregivers. However, people often struggle to access these services. With this issue in mind, the current study aimed to explore the experiences of cancer survivors and their caregivers in accessing supportive care services in New Brunswick, Canada, as well as their prospective interest in a provincial supportive care centre. Forty-four individuals participated in an online or mail survey designed to identify experiences accessing supportive care services and supportive care needs. Results indicated the supportive care services that are most important to participants (e.g., mental and emotional support). Many participants noted that they were unaware of the availability of follow-up services and methods of access. Participants had a variety of unmet care requirements including lack of informational support and care coordination. All participants reported that they would like to have a supportive care centre in New Brunswick. These findings offer important recommendations for improving the coordination and delivery of supportive cancer care for this population.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".