Learning to Live With and Beyond Hematological Cancer: A Narrative Study for a Comprehensive Patient Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim is to describe and conceptualize the lived experiences of people learning to live with and beyond hematological cancer throughout the cancer trajectory. METHOD: This study used a narrative qualitative methodology to explore the experiences and experiential learning processes of people living with and beyond hematological cancer throughout their cancer care trajectory. Participants were recruited via a Canadian patient advocacy organization, and data were collected via remote semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed into first-person narratives and validated by participants. Data were analyzed using a hybrid inductive/deductive content analysis framework based on an educational biography reconstruction analysis approach. RESULTS: Twelve participants described their experiences during the hematological cancer care trajectory. These were conceptualized into 4 phases. The first phase, characterized as "Loss and Disruption," occurs during the time of the first symptoms and diagnosis. Next, we present the second phase, characterized by "Putting One's Life on Hold" during treatment. Then, we describe the third phase, characterized by "Rediscovery and Personal Development," which occurs at the end of treatment. The fourth phase, "Starting Over, Drawing from Experience" represents the experience of recurrence of cancer that is common in hemato-oncology. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights how the hematological cancer care trajectory influenced the process of learning to live with the disease. This experiential learning is closely tied to the different stages of the care trajectory, its key events, and the various individuals involved. These results will assist oncology nurses in developing sensitivity through a deeper understanding of each patient's unique journey and experiential learning.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".