Support by peers in the clinical team in oncology: Perception of the contribution of patient advisors to improve the patient experience.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
57 Background: Since 2018, three establishments in Quebec have introduced patient advisors (PA) in their healthcare team in order to improve cancer patients’ experience. These PA, who have had a cancer experience, meet patients undergoing radiotherapy treatments or in oncogenetics for breast cancer on the healthcare site. They conduct consultations to complete the offer of services by bringing emotional, informational, and educational support. Methods: A longitudinal study of multiple cases was completed from January to June 2020. After each accompaniment, the PA filled out a logbook to document the main themes covered and the accompanied patient fill out a survey to evaluate their experience one week after the intervention. A qualitative analysis of the logbook content and descriptive statistics were conducted. The REDCAP platform was used for monitoring the process of data collection and to administer the surveys online. Results: In total, 67 patients were accompanied by 4 PA. 71 logbooks were completed by the PA. The logbooks show that 70.3% of accompaniments took place right before radiotherapy and 63.6% following the results of the genetic test in oncogenetics. 50% of meetings took place in person in the establishment (in a space dedicated to the PA or not) and 45.8% were by phone. The meetings lasted approximately 37 minutes (min: 15 minutes and max: 90 minutes). The majority only met once (93.1 %). The most common themes discussed are: the role of the PA (94.1%), returning to day life (57.6%) and dealing with stress and anxiety (52.2%). 96% of PA felt that they did not encounter any difficulties during the accompaniment. For the accompanied women, the partnership was most beneficial for their experience with the illness (sharing experiences of side-effects, on the impact of the illness on every day life, with their social circle). 79% of patients found that the accompaniment met their needs. 90% of patients estimate that these meetings are complimentary to the healthcare professionals’ interventions. Finally, 89.5% of accompanied patients think that it would be very important to develop these types of meetings on a larger scale. Concerning the adaptation of spaces for the meetings, 26.3% are very satisfied and 26.3% are rather satisfied (probably an area for improvement). Conclusions: Overall, the partnerships seem to answer the needs of the accompanied patients and the PA can share their experience inside the clinical team.
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 | 0,006 | 0,035 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,007 | 0,001 |
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 ».