Developing and evaluating new models of care in hematology.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
e21557 Background: The journey of care for patients with hematological cancer from the time of diagnosis can often be five years or longer. During this period, patients frequently visit their hematology team and may not maintain regular appointments with their family doctor. In doing so, patients may leave other non cancer related health issues, unmonitored. As such, we plan to improve patient care by developing new models of care in hematology to address key medical and psychological needs across the trajectory of care. The goal is to facilitate transition to long term care to primary care where appropriate. Methods: Reviewed published literature on shared care and survivorship modeling for other cancers and included key stakeholder discussion. Conducted semi-structured focus groups with a total of 26 participants (patients, caregivers, family doctors) from the Greater Hamilton area in Ontario, Canada. Participants were asked to share their views on drafted models of care for people with hematological cancer. Results: Three models around the trajectory of care were developed (shared, survivorship and engagement). The analysis revealed that patients were willing to have their family doctor take on more routine follow up visits to monitor blood work as long as the results were readily shared with their hematologist. Patients agreed that more visits to their family doctor could only improve their overall health, although some were apprehensive about their family doctor’s abilities to care for them following their cancer diagnosis. Family doctors similarly were unsure how to treat these patients and felt that clear, concise guidelines need to be developed to outline how to properly care for the long term effects of cancer treatments. Conclusions: Many patients would be willing to engage in shared care with their family doctor during their cancer journey if family doctors were more confident in their cancer care abilities and if communication improved between specialty and primary care. Patients felt that shared care would be beneficial to their overall health. Family doctors stressed that care plans are concise and not outside of their scope. Overall, both family doctors and patients felt that the new models of care, once developed, will help to improve patient outcomes.
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 | 0,057 | 0,075 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,004 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,010 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 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 ».