Patterns of follow-up in oncologic care across Canada.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
e20589 Background: With continual advancements in cancer care, improved outcomes and increasing survivor populations, cancer survivorship has become an important area of research. Methods: A 35-question electronic survey was sent to physician members of the Canadian Association of Radiation Oncologists. Based on their scope of practice, respondents were presented with brief clinical scenarios pertaining to various survivor populations. A subsequent series of questions were posed to determine routine follow-up practices. Results: In total, 111 radiation oncologists (RO) responded (44% response rate); 29% were female, 43% were in practice less than 10 years, and most regions of Canada were well represented. Most worked in centers staffed by more than 10 oncologists (69%), and saw more than 200 new patient consults per year (78%). 10% would not follow patients routinely, mainly in cases involving breast or prostate survivors. 73% of such patients (73%) would be followed by their primary care providers (PCP) whereas ROs would follow their CNS, GI, HN and GYNE patients. Lack of resources (55%) and a belief that follow-up by PCPs is equally effective (55%) were the top two reasons for not following patients. Treatment toxicity (92%) and the possibility of salvage or palliative treatment (86%) were the two most common reasons for routine follow-up. The majority (55%) of ROs follow patients for < 5 years, with 36% following for 5-10 years, and a minority (9%) following for longer than 10 years. 54% would not change the frequency of their follow-up, but 39% would decrease and only 7% would make no change. Workload and lack of resources were major barriers to follow-up, but in addition, many felt that follow-up by FPs or Advanced Practice Nurses could be equally effective. Some felt this would require additional training and more guidelines to make this effective. Conclusions: The majority of ROs follow their patients, especially when salvage treatment is possible. A significant portion would decrease their follow-up in frequency because of workload burden, resource limitations and a belief that there can or should be increased involvement from FPs and other allied health care providers.
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 | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| 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 | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».