Assessing Patient-Reported Outcomes: A Mixed Methods Qualitative Comparison Between Obturator and Surgically Reconstructed Maxillectomy Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cancers of the maxillary region are often treated surgically with a maxillectomy followed by rehabilitation involving surgical reconstruction or obturator insertion to improve functional outcomes. However, there is a lack of consensus regarding the specific indications for either rehabilitation method. The objective of this study was to identify unique functional domains for maxillectomy patients who underwent surgical reconstruction or obturator insertion post-op to provide standardized data that can inform selection of either method. METHODS: This mixed-methods qualitative research was conducted from January 2020 to June 2022 at London Health Sciences Centre, a tertiary care center in London, Ontario, Canada. Phase I included open-ended patient interviews through grounded theory, while phase II incorporated focus groups through the Delphi technique. Phase I identified functional domains of interest, which were further refined based on importance to patients in phase II. Inclusion criteria consisted of adults, 18 years or older who underwent maxillectomy surgery for head and neck cancer. RESULTS: A total of 22 patients were included in phase I and 8 patients were included in phase II. The top 4 functional domains that affected patients regardless of rehabilitation method were eating difficulties, speaking difficulties, social discomfort with public eating, and numbness. The top 4 unique functional domains identified for the surgical group were dry mouth, trismus, chewing difficulties, and eye-related symptoms. The top 4 unique functional domains for the obturator group were obturator discomfort, nasal regurgitation, weight loss, and voice changes. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified functional domains affecting maxillectomy patients, which can be used to inform decisions regarding selection of rehabilitation method in clinical practice. This data can also in the future to create the first patient-reported outcomes instrument for this patient 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".