Doctor, What Are My Options? a Prospective Cohort Study of an Individualized Care Plan for Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: For cancer patients, information about their disease and its treatment is often delivered within a short time period, potentially leading to patient misunderstanding, which can impede optimal patient care. In this 3-part clinical study, we investigated the utility of an individualized care plan for patients with gastrointestinal (gi) cancer starting a new treatment. METHODS: In part 1, a comprehensive literature search identified items for potential inclusion in the care plan. Those items were formatted into a questionnaire. The questionnaire was then administered to patients as a structured interview. In part 2, health care professionals involved in the care of patients with gi cancer evaluated the resulting care plan for content and relevancy. In part 3, a 20-week prospective cohort study (10 weeks using standard of care, 10 weeks using individualized care plans) was conducted. Outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 2-4 weeks after administration of the care plan. RESULTS: In part 1, a 73-item questionnaire was developed and completed by 20 patients in semi-structured interviews. In part 2, long and short versions of the care plan were created. Most health care professionals preferred the long version. Based on their comments, a final version of the care plan was created. The part 3 study enrolled 104 patients. Overall satisfaction scores were significantly higher in the intervention group at baseline (p = 0.010) and follow-up (p = 0.005). Compared with control patients, the intervention cohort also reported significantly higher overall quality of life (p = 0.044) and fewer symptoms of anxiety (p = 0.048) at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Provision of an individualized care plan resulted in improvements in outcome measures at both baseline and follow-up. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".