Family physicians' perspectives on practice guidelines related to cancer control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Family physicians (FPs) play an important role in cancer control. While FPs' attitudes towards, and use of guidelines in general have been explored, no study has looked at the needs of FPs with respect to guidelines for the continuum of cancer control. The objective of this study was to understand which guideline topics FPs consider important. METHODS: Five group interviews were conducted by telephone with FPs from across Ontario, Canada. Transcripts were analyzed inductively. Content analysis identified emergent themes. Themes are illustrated by representative quotes taken from the transcripts. RESULTS: The main areas where FPs felt guidelines were needed most included screening - a traditional area of responsibility for FPs - and treatment and follow-up - areas where they felt they lacked the knowledge to best support patients. Confusion over best practice when faced with conflicting guidelines varied according to disease site. FPs defined good guideline formats; the most often cited forms of presentation were tear-off sheets to use interactively with patients, or a binder. Computer-based dissemination was acknowledged as the best way of widely distributing material that needs frequent updates. However, until computer use is a common aspect of practice, mail was considered the most viable method of dissemination. Guidelines designed for use by patients were supported by FPs. CONCLUSIONS: Preferred guideline topics, format, dissemination methods and role of patient guidelines identified by FPs in this study reflect the nature of their practice situations. Guideline developers and those supporting use of evidence-based guidelines (e.g., Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control) have a responsibility to ensure that FPs are provided with the resources they identify as important, and to provide them in a format that will best support their use.
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 | 0.014 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".