“Anybody who can clarify or humanize the experience would be such a help”: An interpretive description of perceptions of genomic health and nursing care in individuals with cancer predisposition syndromes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: There is increased use of genomic testing in oncology care. Yet, individuals with hereditary cancer predisposition syndromes (CPS) experience challenges when navigating the lifelong CPS healthcare considerations. The purpose of this study is to describe the healthcare experiences of individuals living with CPS and their perceptions of genomic-informed nursing care. METHODS: Interpretive description (ID) was the qualitative approach used in this patient-oriented research study, conducted in partnership with two individuals with lived experience of CPS. Participants were recruited to participate in an interview using a variety of public and provider/patient network sampling sources. Inductive data analysis was guided by general steps for ID analysis as described by Sally Thorne. RESULTS: Thirty-seven individuals who self-reported a CPS participated in interviews between April and August 2023. Two primary themes were identified: 1), When genomic knowledge is power, and 2), Perceived acceptability of nursing roles in CPS care. Participants described genomic knowledge as a form of personal and family empowerment, but many reported that CPS-related knowledge is inaccessible in the healthcare system. This often resulted in healthcare experiences that were insufficient and fragmented. Although participants reported minimal nursing involvement in their CPS care, there was a consensus that enhanced nursing contributions could be beneficial. They particularly endorsed the potential value of a dedicated oncology genomic nursing role. CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight patient-endorsed opportunities for nurses at the generalized and specialized levels to contribute to improved cancer genomic care. Findings can be used to inform novel models of clinical care for individuals with CPS.
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".