A Qualitative Study Exploring the Rehabilitation Experience of Individuals with a Previous Diagnosis of Cancer and/or Sepsis, Their Caregivers, and Health Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Survivors of cancer have more than double the risk of developing sepsis compared to those with no history of cancer. Those who develop sepsis have lasting side effects reducing their physical function and quality of life. Rehabilitation-related needs and barriers are unknown for individuals with cancer who have had sepsis. The aim of this study was to examine the rehabilitation-related experiences of patients with cancer and/or sepsis, their caregivers, and the healthcare team and the educational needs regarding the rehabilitation of patients with sepsis. METHODS: We performed a qualitative descriptive study using interviews and focus groups for data generation. We included adults living in Canada who were English-speaking, currently or formerly diagnosed with cancer and/or sepsis, or a caregiver of someone with a current or past diagnosis of cancer and/or sepsis, or a healthcare professional working with this population. Two reviewers used NVivo software for data management and conducted a qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: We included 30 study participants (nine patients, nine caregivers, 12 healthcare professionals; 15 for one-on-one interviews; 15 in the focus groups). We identified three overarching themes relating to rehabilitation: (1) the rehabilitation experience did not meet the patient's care expectations; (2) barriers to rehabilitation exist on multiple levels; (3) there are important gaps in education on how to improve physical and psychosocial outcomes. We identified two themes related to educational resources: (1) the educational content provided must be specific and meaningful; (2) multi-modal resources are needed to suit diverse partner needs. CONCLUSIONS: We identified rehabilitation barriers related to healthcare settings, the pandemic, and workplace culture for those with cancer and sepsis. This study highlights the need to create diverse educational resources on rehabilitation for those with sepsis to improve outcomes and patient/caregiver satisfaction.
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".