Abstract 4141: Access to medical or radiation oncology consultation in patients who died from cancer in the Sudbury-Manitoulin District of Northeastern Ontario, Canada
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Sudbury-Manitoulin district is located in Northeastern Ontario, Canada, and resident cancer patients often receive care at the Northeast Cancer Centre (NECC), a Cancer Care Ontario regional cancer program located at Health Sciences North in Sudbury. In 2008, as part of enhancing services in this district, the NECC established an ambulatory Palliative Clinic. Presently, referral to this clinic occurs subsequent to a patient consultation with a medical or radiation oncology specialist. Using administrative data, the primary purpose of this population-based retrospective study was to estimate the percentage of patients who died from cancer without having had the opportunity to access this clinic through a prior documented medical or radiation oncology consultation during the interval of 2004-2008. A secondary purpose was to determine factors associated with never having received this specialized medical consult. Data was obtained through The Ontario Cancer Data Linkage Project (`cd-link') an initiative of the Ontario Institute for Cancer Research/Cancer Care Ontario Health Services Research Program. For each index case, we constructed a timeline (days) of all Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) billing codes and associated service dates, from primary cancer diagnosis through to cancer death. Our main outcome variable, consultation with a medical or radiation oncologist, was dichotomized as “ever” or “never”. A total of 6,683 individuals with a valid primary cancer diagnosis record died from any cancer cause in the Sudbury-Manitoulin District within the 5 year period from 2004-2008. Most (n=5988, 89.6%) had one primary cancer diagnoses. For this subgroup, and excluding those with a disease duration of 0 days (n=67), about 18.4% (n=1088/5921) never consulted a medical or radiation oncologist through their disease trajectory. Multivariable logistic regression identified three significant and independent predictors of having never received a consultation. Older age and rural residence were associated with increased risk of “never consultation”, with adjusted Odds Ratio (OR)s of 7.13 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) 3.68-13.81) and 1.77 (95% CI 1.51-2.06) for residents 80 years and older, or living in a rural residence, respectively. A longer duration of disease was associated with a decreased risk, with an OR of 0.99 (95% CI 0.99-0.99). While there are limitations to using administrative data, we estimate that 18.4% of the residents in this area did not benefit from a specialized consultation about their cancer care, which could also have included suitability and timing of referral to the palliative care clinic. Specific strategies directed towards older and rural patients may help to address this important access to care issue. Citation Format: Michael Conlon, Mark Hartman, Barbara Ballantyne, Mary Bewick, Margaret Meigs, Natalie Aubin, Andrew Knight. Access to medical or radiation oncology consultation in patients who died from cancer in the Sudbury-Manitoulin District of Northeastern Ontario, Canada. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2014 Apr 5-9; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2014;74(19 Suppl):Abstract nr 4141. doi:10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-4141
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».