The Relational Experience of Fear of Cancer Recurrence in Family Caregivers: A Reflexive Thematic Analysis Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) affects approximately 50% of family caregivers. While FCR in cancer patients has been well-documented, less is known about the experience of FCR in family caregivers. This study aimed to qualitatively explore the distinct characteristics of FCR in family caregivers. A focus group and semi-structured interviews were conducted via videoconferencing with family caregivers of cancer survivors (stages I-III, finished treatment, no recurrence). Participants were recruited through Canadian hospitals, community partners, and social media. The focus group and qualitative interviews explored family caregivers' experiences of FCR, including its content, frequency, impact, and management. A reflexive thematic analysis was used. In total, twenty family caregivers participated. Six participated in the focus group. Sixteen participated in the interviews. Two participated in both. Family caregivers described their experience of FCR as all-consuming, constant, and marked by a sense of helplessness. Qualitative analysis revealed a major theme of relational aspects of FCR in family caregivers, with the following four inter-related themes: patient-centric hypervigilance, self-silencing, FCR as isolating, and finding support. This qualitative study examined the experiences of family caregivers living with FCR. Our findings highlight that relational factors shape how family caregivers experience and manage their FCR. High-quality survivorship care should be redefined to include FCR interventions tailored to family caregivers.
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 | 0.018 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".