Patient-reported experience of diagnosis, management, and burden of renal cell carcinomas: Results >2,000 patients in 41 countries, with focus on older patients.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
306 Background: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is increasing in global prevalence, thereby increasing burden to health systems, and most of all, to individual patients and their families. Little is known about the variations in patient experience and best practices among countries. Here, we report on the second biennial Global Patient Survey on the diagnosis, management, and burden of Renal Cell Carcinomas conducted by the International Kidney Coalition (IKCC) worldwide in 13 languages. The aim of the survey was to improve collective understanding and to contribute toward the reduction of the burden of kidney cancer around the world. Methods: A 35-question survey on the diagnosis, management, and burden of RCC was designed by a multi-country steering committee to identify geographic variations in 6 topics: patient education, experience and awareness, access to care and clinical trials, best practices, quality of life, and unmet psychosocial needs. The survey was distributed to patients with kidney cancer and their caregivers in 13 languages, through IKCC’s 46 Affiliate Organisations and social media from 29 Oct 2020 to 5 Jan 2021. Results: 2,012 responses came from 41 countries. Survey results were analysed using cross-tabulations by an independent third-party organisation. The full global report is publicly available, as well as 7 individual country reports where at least 100 responses were received. 42% reported that the likelihood of surviving their cancer beyond 5 years was not explained Just over half (51%) reported that they were involved as much as they wanted to be in developing their treatment plan. 56% experienced barriers to their treatment 41% indicated that “No one” discussed cancer clinical trials with them 31% were invited to take part in a clinical trial 45% self-reported that they were insufficiently active 50% indicated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ experienced disease-related anxiety. 26% ‘very often’ or ‘always’ experienced stress related to financial issues 55% indicated that they ‘very often’ or ‘always’ experienced a fear of recurrence 52% reported having talked to their doctor/healthcare professional about their concerns 48% had been offered a biopsy in the past with only 3% refusing; 47% would be willing to undergo biopsy in the future Patients aged ≤65 experienced more barriers to quality care, understood their disease less well, and experienced a longer time to diagnosis. Conclusions: The IKCC and its global affiliates will be using the results to ensure that patients’ voices are heard. Actionable points will suggest future projects. Individual countries can use their reports to advance their understanding of patient experiences and to improve local care.
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 | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 ».