Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Perspectives on the Time Burdens of Cancer Care
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Importance: Cancer and its care impose significant time commitments on patients and care partners. The oncology community has only recently conceptualized these commitments and the associated burden as the "time toxicity" of cancer care. As the concept gains traction, there is a critical need to fundamentally understand the perspectives of multiple stakeholders on the time burdens of cancer care. Objectives: To explore time-consuming aspects of cancer care that were perceived as burdensome, identify the individuals most affected by time burdens of cancer care, and evaluate the consequences of these time burdens. Design, Setting, and Participants: Participants in this qualitative analysis were recruited from a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center in Minnesota, where semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted from February 1 to October 31, 2023. Purposive and criterion sampling methods were used to recruit patients (adults with advanced stage gastrointestinal cancer receiving systemic cancer-directed treatment), care partners (patient-identified informal [unpaid] partners), and clinicians (physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, nurses, social workers, and schedulers). Data were analyzed from February 2023 to February 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures: Thematic analysis was conducted with a hybrid (inductive and deductive methods) approach. Themes, subthemes, and illustrative quotations are presented. Results: Interviews included 47 participants (16 patients [8 aged ≤60 years; 12 women (75.0%)], 15 care partners [12 aged ≤60 years; 9 women (60.0%)], and 16 clinicians [11 women (68.7%)]). A total of 31 subthemes were identified that were grouped into 5 themes. Theme 1 captured time burdens due to health care outside the home (eg, travel, parking, and waiting time), while theme 2 identified the often invisible tasks performed at home (eg, handling insurance and medical bills, receiving formal home-based care). Theme 3 explored how care partners are affected alongside patients (eg, burdens extending to the wider network of family, friends, and community) and theme 4 represented the consequences of time burdens (eg, demoralization, seemingly short visits turned into all-day affairs). Finally, theme 5 referenced positive time spent in clinical interactions and hope for change (eg, patients value meaningful care, the "time toxicity" label is a spark for change). Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative analysis identifies key sources and effects of time toxicity, as well as the populations affected. The results of this study will guide the oncology community to map, measure, and address future time burdens.
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 | 0,015 | 0,029 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| 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 ».