Living with and beyond cancer: What older adults tell us about healthy aging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Healthy aging is a process that allows for optimal functional ability and wellbeing, but little is known about older adults' experiences living with and beyond cancer (also called survivorship). The purpose of this study was to explore the experiences and perceptions of healthy aging among older adults living with and beyond cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Community-dwelling older adults diagnosed with cancer at age ≥ 65 were recruited to participate in a series of in-depth semi-structured interviews. We used interpretive description and patient-oriented research methods. Data were thematically analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 20 older adults living with and beyond cancer (mean age 74) in British Columbia, Canada, participated. Coping with cancer and age-related changes in older age was important for healthy aging and quality of life. Older adults coped by adapting to maintain their health and function, accepting and rejecting barriers, and defying ageist norms about cancer in older age. Participants reported discrepancies between their own priorities for healthy aging and their perceptions of healthcare providers' priorities for them. For example, older adults identified a lack of attention to quality of life and minimal integration of psychosocial supports in cancer treatment and survivorship care. Our findings also address the nuances of how cancer influences health behaviours in the context of pursuing healthy aging. DISCUSSION: Understanding the experiences and perceptions of healthy aging among older adults living with and beyond cancer is critical to promoting health for this growing population. Our findings highlight the need for individualized care and the importance of quality of life for older adults living with and beyond cancer. This work can inform interventions to support healthy aging.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".