Applying fit theory: exploratory analysis of an online survey of care coordination and satisfaction with ambulatory cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic in Manitoba, Canada (Preprint)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND During the COVID19 pandemic in Manitoba, Canada, the cancer experience was explored using two sibling studies. One study consisted of an online survey designed to assess how patient satisfaction and experience with care coordination differed among the population of cancer patients undergoing cancer treatment. The survey facilitated recruitment for a grounded theory study exploring the cancer experience and how the pandemic impacted it. OBJECTIVE This report presents the results of the survey, with discussion informed by the findings of the grounded theory study. METHODS A link to an online survey was made available to patients receiving cancer treatment (intravenous treatments and radiotherapy) in Manitoba, Canada, between July 31, 2020, and February 28, 2022, primarily through invitations printed on patient’s individualized treatment schedules. The survey included validated patient reported experience measures (PREMs) for patient satisfaction and care coordination as well as an option to opt into being contacted for additional research opportunities. Analysis included the generation of descriptive statistics and logistic regression, including univariate and stepwise multivariate model building, exploring predictors of above and below average PREMs scores. RESULTS A total of 203 responses were collected, 154 were complete for at least one PREM measure and were included in the analysis. Average age was 65 years (SD = 11.7). Most respondents were male (n = 79, 52.7%), and being treated with curative intent (n = 81, 53.6%). The most common type of cancer was breast (n = 41, 26.6%). Univariate analysis demonstrated that age 60 – 69 was associated with above average satisfaction with care (OR = 2.205, 95% CI = 1.045 – 4.624, P = .04), while age < 60 (OR = 0.437, 95% CI = 0.204 – 0.934, P = .03) and ECOG ≥ 2 were associated with below average patient satisfaction (OR = 0.327, 95% CI = 0.137 – 0.782, P = .01). Age between 60 – 69, ECOG ≥ 2, and hematological malignancy were selected through stepwise model building, resulting in an explanatory model (R2 = 0.129) of patient satisfaction. ECOG ≥ 2 was associated with below average care coordination (OR = 0.357, 95% CI = 0.145 – 0.880, P = .03), and was the only identified predictor of care coordination, with no explanatory multivariate model generated. CONCLUSIONS This survey identified that those with poor functional status, as well as those outside of the 60 – 69 age range, are likely to have a below average experience with regards to satisfaction and coordination of care. Through the lens of the sibling grounded theory study, it is possible that these findings are due to unmet supportive care needs that need to be further characterized and addressed. The approach to collecting PREMs used in this study was simple to deploy, and yielded meaningful results, however further work is needed to improve response rates.
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 | 0,014 | 0,048 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,009 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 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 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 ».