The experiences of people diagnosed with severe mental illness and colorectal cancer: A qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesThere is evidence that people with severe mental illness (SMI) are more likely to be diagnosed at a later stage and die earlier from colorectal cancer (CRC). The purpose of this study is to understand the barriers to effective CRC diagnosis and treatment for this group.MethodsFive people (four people diagnosed with CRC and SMI and one carer for a person in this group) participated in interviews about their experience of CRC diagnosis and treatment. Interviews were analysed using NVivo to identify key themes.ResultsWe identified four key themes: diagnostic overshadowing, fear, practical access and interpersonal partnerships.ConclusionsParticipants in this study were less likely to have their healthcare needs met because of discrimination and unmet needs associated with their diagnosis of SMI. This is not a new finding - many other mental and physical health researchers have identified this problem. But this study enables people who have lived through the challenge of this experience to share their perspective. Consequently, we recommend that future research focus on practical strategies to minimise discrimination among health professionals and policymakers and identify solutions to address the disproportionate barriers people diagnosed with SMI encounter regarding CRC testing.
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) | 0.000 | 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".