Information Needs of Patients With Head and Neck Cancer and Their Supports in Relation to Treatment Management Choices: Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Advances in research and modes of information delivery provide new opportunities to access medical information. Despite this, patient information needs on head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment are not sufficiently met. Objective: The aim is to investigate (1) information content required for patients with HNC and their caregivers to support confident decisions about their treatment, (2) information needs by role (eg, patient and caregiver), and (3) the preferred format or mode of information delivery. Results will be used to inform the development and testing of a decision aid for this patient population. Methods: A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley and Levac et al frameworks. The search was carried out in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and limited to the English language between 2012 and the search date of September 20, 2022. Studies were dual-screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria, central to which was a focus on information needs within the context of decision-making. Data were extracted from the articles using prespecified criteria into a data extraction sheet that was pilot-tested and refined prior to its application. Reporting followed the research questions and was guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews). Results: A total of 10,495 publications were identified, with 30 articles suitable for data extraction. High information needs included details of the diagnosis (3/30, 10%), purpose (6/30, 20%), and risks (10/30, 33%) of medical procedures; strategies for eating and speaking during and after treatment (6/30, 20%); lifestyle guidelines for survivorship (4/30, 13%); and facts about the human papillomavirus (2/30, 7%). Moderate information needs included the physical (10/30, 33%) and psychological (17/30, 57%) domains of posttreatment, treatment options (6/30, 20%), strategies to improve communication with health care providers (8/30, 27%), and nutrition (8/30, 27%). Information needs of patients with HNC and their caregivers evolved through the phases of treatment, highlighting the need for relevant information to support collaborative decision-making with their health care providers. Caregiver needs were underrepresented (5/30, 17%), but more information on stress reduction strategies for the patient, how to play a role in treatment decisions, and where to obtain the best medical care for the patient was identified. The preferred mode of delivery for information varied and reflected the age, gender, and country of the sample populations. Conclusions: Information needs of patients with HNC and their caregivers are not being met to a satisfactory level, evidenced by the breadth of outstanding needs. Health care providers must consider evolving patient and caregiver information needs, addressing concerns on an individual basis to support shared decision-making. Tools are needed to support information delivery that is acceptable to patients and 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".