Assessing the needs of people living with cancer on Prince Edward Island: A psychosocial approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The needs of 139 people living with cancer in Prince Edward Island were examined in this cross-sectional descriptive quantitative study. Primarily close-ended telephone interviews were used to identify the informational, practical and financial, as well as emotional, spiritual, and social needs of cancer patients. Level of health care service accessibility, the degree and desired mechanism in which needs are being, and can be, met were also explored. Overall, information needs ranked high among cancer patients in Prince Edward Island. Over half of patients expressed a need for several types of information. The two most common places patients look for information are health care professionals (66%) and the Internet (50%), and patients prefer to receive information via pamphlets and written materials (86%). Managing side effects such as pain, nausea, and fatigue (30%) was the most often reported practical need, as well as the most often reported unmet practical need (40%). Between 25% and 30% of patients reported several needs related to emotional, spiritual and social concerns, with roughly half of patients stating that these needs had not been met. Over half of participants (57%) indicated that they would like to receive support through individual visits with a cancer survivor, or through access to a central staff person that could guide cancer patients through their cancer experience (53%). Many patients stated that their health care services needs were accessible all of the time.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".