Unmet Supportive Cancer Care Needs: An Exploratory Quantitative Study in Rural Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a discernible, often ignored under-evaluated care-management gap in supportive cancer care, where the estimated clinical outcome is seldom translated into patient-centered benefit. METHODS: The present research is an exploratory cross-sectional quantitative questionnaire survey study done in rural regions of Australia with the sole purpose of evaluating the care-management gap in terms of the unmet supportive needs of advanced cancer patients to provide baseline data for planning, drafting and implementing innovative and effective supportive care services that will address the specific priorities and unmet needs identified in this vulnerable population in the remote and rural regions. RESULTS: The questionnaire (NA-ACP) was comprised of 132 questions covering seven domains of supportive care. Three centers in rural regions of Australia were selected for the study. While center 1 had medical and surgical specialties, centers 2 and 3 were outreach oncology clinics with nurse-led chemotherapy units. A total sample of 75 patients getting continuous treatment procedures at these three oncology units was given the NA-ACP questionnaire. CONCLUSION: The data from this study can be used to improve and inform care for this population by identifying specific unmet supportive needs.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".