Symptom Screening Linked to Care Pathways for Pediatric Patients With Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Pediatric patients with cancer commonly experience severely bothersome symptoms. The effectiveness of routine symptom screening with symptom feedback and symptom management care pathways is unknown. Objective: To determine whether thrice-weekly symptom screening with symptom feedback and management care pathways, compared with usual care, improves overall self-reported symptom scores measured by the Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) in pediatric patients with cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized trial enrolled participants between July 2021 and August 2023 from 20 pediatric cancer centers in the US. Patients newly diagnosed with cancer aged 8 to 18 years receiving any cancer treatment were included. Twenty sites were randomized to provide symptom screening (n = 10) vs usual care (n = 10); 221 participants were enrolled at intervention sites and 224 participants at control sites. The date of final follow-up was October 18, 2023. Intervention: Symptom screening included providing thrice-weekly symptom screening prompts to participants, email alerts to the health care team, and locally adapted symptom management care pathway implementation. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was self-reported total SSPedi score at week 8 (range, 0-60; higher scores indicate more bothersome). Secondary outcomes were Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Fatigue score (mean [SD] score, 50 [10]; higher scores indicate more fatigue), Pediatric Quality of Life 3.0 Acute Cancer Module scores (range, 0-100; higher scores indicate better health), symptom documentation and interventions at week 8, and unplanned health care encounters. Results: A total of 445 participants (median [range] age, 14.8 [8.1-18.9] years; 58.9% males) were enrolled. The mean (SD) 8-week SSPedi score was 7.9 (7.2) in the symptom screening group vs 11.4 (8.7) in the usual care group. Symptom screening was associated with significantly better 8-week total SSPedi scores (adjusted mean difference, -3.8 [95% CI, -6.4 to -1.2]) and less bothersome individual symptoms, with 12 of 15 symptoms being statistically significantly reduced. There was no difference in fatigue or quality of life. The mean (SD) number of emergency department visits was 0.77 (1.12) in the symptom screening group and 0.45 (0.81) in the usual care group. There were significantly more emergency department visits in the symptom screening group (rate ratio, 1.72 [95% CI, 1.03-2.87]). Conclusions: Symptom screening with symptom feedback and symptom management care pathways was associated with improved symptom scores and increased symptom-specific interventions. Future work should integrate symptom screening into routine clinical care. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04614662.
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 | 0,001 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 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 ».