Developing and evaluating new models of care in hematology.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
53 Background: The duration of care for patients with hematological malignancies (HM) from diagnosis to discharge can often be five years or longer, during which patients frequently visit their hematologist but may not maintain contact with their primary care physician (PCP). This can result in gaps in the care of non cancer health problems. A number of studies in solid tumors have highlighted the benefits of maintaining contact with the PCP however there has been little published on survivorship care in HM. Objective. Develop and evaluate models of care in hematology that facilitate transition to the PCP where appropriate. Methods: This study used a stepwise approach to inform the development and evaluation of care models. Models were developed using: a literature review; expert opinion; input from patient and PCP focus groups. The survivorship model (SM) was evaluated in a longitudinal, cohort of patients using validated patient surveys: Coordination of Cancer Care Questionnaire; Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale; EQ5D-QoL. Results: Focus groups were conducted with 26 participants. Patients indicated they would be willing to engage with their PCP if primary care were more confident in their cancer care abilities, and if communication improved between specialty and PCP. PCPs felt care plans should be clear, concise and within their scope. Three new models of care were developed based on level of care need (survivorship, shared, engagement). The SM has been tested with 50 patients who have completed treatment and follow up. Survey results indicated the majority of SM patients: continued to feel well; reported high functioning; had seen their PCP since discharge; were satisfied with the coordination of their care. Fifteen PCPs responded to a follow up survey. PCPs were: satisfied with the SM care plan and aware of the repatriation process to specialty care, if needed. Conclusions: Patient involvement in model design was instrumental in the success of the project. PCPs reported that the tools developed in this pilot enhanced the care experience and provider collaboration. These findings warrant further testing of care models in a comparative study with this complex cancer population.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 tête enseignante, 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 ».