Patient education for older adults with cancer and their caregivers: Protocol for a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Treatment decision-making for older adults is complex due to multimorbidity, polypharmacy, and age-related changes such as sensory impairment and cognitive decline. In addition, many older adults have lower health literacy, which impacts their ability to access, understand, and apply health information. Patient education plays a critical role to comprehend a new cancer diagnosis, explore treatment options, and manage care effectively. To be effective, education materials must be specifically tailored to the needs of this population. Despite growing recognition of the importance of geriatric-specific cancer education, no recent review has synthesized the literature on educational interventions or materials developed for this population. This review aims to answer the question: What is known about patient education interventions and materials developed for older adults with cancer and their caregivers and their effectiveness to improve outcomes?. We will follow the Arksey and O'Malley framework, refined by Levac et al., and report according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. We will search Medline ALL, Embase, Emcare, Cochrane Central, PsycInfo (all via OvidSP), and Scopus (via Elsevier) for studies published from 2000 onward and complete a manual search of the references of included studies. A health sciences librarian conducted the searches. We will include peer-reviewed and relevant grey literature. Stakeholder consultation will be conducted to inform interpretation of findings and identify gaps. Eligible studies will use qualitative or quantitative designs focused on geriatric oncology patient education. Two reviewers will independently screen studies and extract data using Covidence and Excel. Data will be analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative synthesis. The quality of peer-reviewed studies will be appraised with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (2018) for descriptive purposes only. This scoping review will map existing educational interventions and materials for older adults with cancer, support clinicians in practice, and highlight gaps to inform future research and development.
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 | 0.069 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.017 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.106 | 0.017 |
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".