Psychosocial Barriers and Social Perceptions in Oncology Patients with Tracheostomy: Case–Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with respiratory tract malignancies who undergo tracheostomy often experience profound psychosocial challenges related to visible anatomical changes and altered communication. The aim of this study was to evaluate psychosocial barriers and perceived social acceptance in patients living with a tracheostomy, compared with patients treated for similar cancers without requiring a tracheostomy. A matched case-control study with frequency matching at the group level was conducted including 150 patients with permanent tracheostomies and 150 matched controls treated with organ-preserving approaches. Groups were frequency-matched at the group level based on age, sex, primary tumor site, and disease stage at diagnosis. Participants completed a study-specific questionnaire assessing social withdrawal, self-consciousness, and perceived reactions of others using a five-point Likert scale. A composite Psychosocial Barrier Score was calculated, and subgroup analyses examined differences according to gender and age. Patients with tracheostomies demonstrated significantly higher psychosocial burden than controls, with markedly elevated composite scores and higher endorsement of stigma-related items. Female and younger patients within the tracheostomy group reported the greatest psychosocial difficulties, including increased social avoidance and reduced confidence in public settings. In contrast, gender- and age-related differences were minimal in the control group. These findings indicate that tracheostomy is strongly associated with heightened psychosocial barriers and perceived social stigma, particularly among younger and female patients. Integrating targeted psychosocial support into routine post-treatment care may be essential to improve social reintegration and quality of life in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".