Comparing Perspectives of Canadian Men Diagnosed With Prostate Cancer and Health Care Professionals About Active Surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Active surveillance (AS) has gained acceptance as a primary management approach for patients diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer (PC). In this qualitative study, we compared perspectives between patients and health care professionals (HCP) to identify what may contribute to patient–provider discordance, influence patient decision-making, and interfere with the uptake of AS. We performed a systematic comparison of perspectives about AS reported from focus groups with men eligible for AS (7 groups, N = 52) and HCP (5 groups, N = 48) who engaged in conversations about AS with patient. We used conventional content analysis to scrutinize separately focus group transcripts and reached a consensus on similar or divergent viewpoints between them. Patients and clinicians agreed that AS was appropriate for low grade PC and understood the low-risk nature of the disease. They shared the perspective that disease status was a critical factor to pursue or discontinue AS. However, men expressed a greater emphasis on quality of life in their decisions related to AS. Patients and clinicians differed in their perspectives on the clarity, availability, and volume of information needed and offered; clinicians acknowledged variations between HCP when presenting AS, while patients were often compelled to seek additional information beyond what was provided by physicians and experienced difficulty in finding or interpreting information applicable to their situation. A greater understanding of discordant perspectives about AS between patients and HCP can help improve patient engagement and education, inform development of knowledge-based tools or aids for decision-making, and identify areas that require standardization across the clinical practice.
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 | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".