{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021844660194174758, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0048543689320388345, 'mean_word_length': 5.21608040201005, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Role of Monitoring in Determining Quality of Life Following Treatment for A Bone Tumor

Interviews were conducted with 34 young people who had previously been treated for a malignant bone tumor around the knee. These interviews focused on the impact of treatment on activities and perceptions of the risk of recurrence and need for future surgery. A coding schema based on a “monitoring-blunting” framework was adopted (Miller, 1995). Quality of life was assessed using a generic and disease-specific measure. Based on interview data, respondents were categorized as negativistic monitors, adaptive monitors, and nonmonitors. There were no differences between groups in terms of medical indicators (number of operations). Negativistic monitors reported poorer quality of life compared with the other two groups. There was no increase in nonmonitoring with time since diagnosis as reported in previous work. It is suggested that patients’ self-ratings of quality of life are related to the way in which they monitor information and this may be independent of clinical function. Clinical implications, especially in terms of how potentially threatening information about late-effects of treatment are given to patients, are discussed.