Trapped in an information provision gap? A scoping review of (unmet) information needs, preferences, and behaviors among long-term cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A scoping review was conducted to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the unmet needs and communication challenges faced by long-term cancer survivors. Information seeking, barriers, and avoidance behaviors were reflected. Following the PRISMA-ScR guidelines, five databases were searched. Of 1,041 articles, 36 met the eligibility criteria. Studies focused on breast and prostate cancer survivors (50%) and survivors residing in North America and Canada (56%). Information needs mainly referred to specific cancer types, recurrence, sexual functioning, fertility, and comorbidities. Information barriers include concerns about trust in information quality, information overload, and difficulties in finding and understanding information. Most survivors are active information seekers, but some also exhibit information avoidance. Survivors prefer information from their healthcare provider or the Internet, as well as medical information and experiences from other survivors. Further research is needed on survivors from vulnerable groups, CAYAs (children, adolescents, and young adults), and ethnic minorities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| 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".