Exploring Determinants of Compassionate Cancer Care in Older Adults Using Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing number of older adults with cancer confront practical and organizational limitations that hinder their ability to obtain care that is adapted to their health status, needs, expectations, and life choices. The integration into practice of evidence-based and institutional recommendations for a geriatric approach and person-centered high-quality care remains incomplete. This study uses an action research design to explore stakeholders' perspectives of the challenges involved in translating the established care priorities into a compassionate geriatric approach in oncology and identify promising pathways to improvement. Fifty-three stakeholders participated in focus groups to create cognitive maps representing perceived relationships between concepts related to compassionate care of older adults with cancer. Combining maps results in a single model constructed in Mental Modeler software to weigh relationships and calculate concept centrality (importance in the model). The model represents stakeholders' collective perspective of the determinants of compassionate care that need to be addressed at different decision-making levels. The results reveal pathways to improvement at systemic, organizational, practice, and societal levels. These include connecting policies on ageing and national cancer programs, addressing fragmented care through interdisciplinary teamwork, promoting person-centered care, cultivating relational proximity, and combatting ageism. Translating evidence-based practices and priority orientations into compassionate care rests on collective capacities across multiple providers to address the whole person and their unique trajectory.
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 | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".