A Patient Advocacy Group Summit, Cancer Care in Turkey and The Society of Breast Health
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer now causes more deaths than all cardiac or all other diseases (1).The number of new cases is expected to rise by about 70% over the next 2 decades.Globally, nearly 1 in 6 deaths is due to cancer, and approximately 70% of deaths from cancer occur in low-and middle-income countries (2).There is a significant disparity in cancer care and outcome of cancer patient results between developed and developing countries.The most important aims of cancer management are prevention, screening, early detection, and effective treatment.In addition to the health care system, patients are the most important stakeholders of cancer care.Patient advocacy groups (PAG) are non-profit, non-governmental (NGO) organizations, and they may play an important role to acquire and protect patients' rights for better cancer management.PAGs can incorporate cancer scientists in a way similar to The Society of Breast Health to perform basic, reliable, and reasonable clinical projects based on the economic, socio-cultural and educational structure of a country.The number of PAGs should be increased and representatives of them should be participated in governmental organizations (such as National cancer Advisory Board, National Cancer Institute, etc.) to advocate and acquire their rights.Their participation absolutely provides integrity in health care systems.To be a more effective and powerful part of cancer care, PAGs should come together in national and international platforms to share their problems and find solutions.Additionally, expert panelists in this field may explain more useful solutions to increase the benefit of these summits.There was an important patient advocacy group (PAG) summit in Vienna on 15-16, September, 2017.I would like to share my views and opinions about this summit as an invited speaker.Twenty-three delegates from 22 patient-groups representing 17 Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries and seven international experts came together at a first-of-its-kind oncology summit (Figure 1).The aims of the summit were to learn from each other about how to improve cancer care through advocacy in their countries, and to inform, empower and equip patient groups so that they are better able to address the challenges they face.The meeting also encouraged relationship-building and the strengthening of peer-to-peer networks between groups and countries.The summit objectives were below:• Bring together the cancer patient community to encourage sharing of experiences and ideas • Facilitate dialogue and learning about capacity building, communications and effective cancer policy campaigning • Inform the community about relevant developments in cancer and global standards • Empower patient advocates to take on old challenges with new insight • Equip organisation with new skills and knowledge to be more effective.
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 | 0,004 | 0,000 |
| 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 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».