Holistic Person-Centered Care in Radiotherapy: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Several types of health care professionals are responsible for the care of patients with cancer throughout their engagement with the health care system. One such type is the radiotherapist. The radiotherapist not only administers treatment but is also directly involved with the patient during treatment. Despite this direct contact with the patient, the narrative tends to focus more on technical tasks than the actual patient. This task-focused interaction is often due to the highly sophisticated equipment and complex radiotherapy treatment processes involved. This often results in not meeting the psychosocial needs of the patient, and patients have acknowledged noncompliance and delayed treatment as a result. OBJECTIVE: The scoping review aims to explore, chart, and map the available literature on holistic person-centered care in radiotherapy and to identify and present key concepts, definitions, methodologies, knowledge gaps, and evidence related to holistic person-centered care in radiotherapy. METHODS: This protocol was developed using previously described methodological frameworks for scoping studies. The review will include both peer-reviewed and gray literature regarding holistic, person-centered care in radiotherapy. A comprehensive search strategy has been developed for MEDLINE (Ovid), which will be translated into the other included databases: Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Library, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Gray literature searching will include Google (Google Books and Google Scholar), ProQuest, the WorldWideScience website, the OpenGrey website, and various university dissertation and thesis repositories. The title and abstract screening, full-text review, and relevant data extraction will be performed independently by all 3 reviewers using the Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation) software, which will also be used to guide the resolution of conflicts. Sources selected will be imported into ATLAS.ti (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH) for analysis, which will consist of content analysis, narrative analysis, and descriptive synthesis. Results will be presented using narrative, diagrammatic, and tabular formats. RESULTS: The review is expected to identify research gaps that will inform current and future holistic, person-centered care in radiotherapy. The review commenced in November 2023, and the formal literature search was completed by the end of February 2024. Final results are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal by 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review are expected to provide a wide variety of strategies aimed at providing holistic, person-centered care in radiotherapy, as well as to identify some gaps in the literature. These findings will be used to inform future studies aimed at designing, developing, evaluating, and implementing strategies toward improved holistic, person-centered care in radiotherapy. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51338.
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 | 0,114 | 0,107 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,011 | 0,014 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,016 | 0,015 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,009 | 0,010 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,010 | 0,009 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,087 | 0,016 |
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 ».