CARING FOR CANCER PATIENTS LIVING WITH DEMENTIA: CHALLENGES AND WAYS FORWARD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The purpose of this study is to address the inequity of care outcomes for patients living with both cancer and dementia through exploring current challenges and barriers, with the goals of creating dementia-friendly cancer care practice recommendations and education. Cancer patients also living with dementia have been found to experience poor outcomes, receiving less cancer screening, staging, and curative treatment than patients without dementia, thus they are typically diagnosed at later stage cancers with lower survival rates. We are conducting a qualitative applied health study drawing on Interpretive Description methodology underpinned by a person-centred philosophy. Phase one of the study has involved conducting interviews with patients, their care-givers, and cancer care providers. In this presentation we are focusing on the findings from our interviews with cancer care providers. Our sample includes 15 RNs, and 15 participants including physicians, therapists, and counsellors. Although they are experts in cancer, care providers often lack confidence and knowledge regarding dementia-care. Findings from their interviews led to themes reflecting both challenges and barriers to providing care. Specific themes related to care challenges include: Difficulty Following Instructions; Balancing Treatment Risks with QOL; Including Care-givers; and Ethical Dilemmas. Additionally, specific themes related to barriers include: Lack of Communication Processes; Lack of Continuity of Care; Lack of Resources; and Lack of Dementia Education. These themes will inform Phase two of the study which will involve creating dementia aware education and recommendations for dementia-friendly policies and processes to better tailor cancer care for patients living with dementia ensuring equity.
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 | 0.038 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".