Wait Times for Prostate Cancer Treatment and Patient Perceptions of Care in Canada: A Mixed-Methods Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to cancer care is a significant concern for Canadians. Prolonged delays between cancer diagnosis and treatment have been associated with anxiety, stress, and perceived powerlessness for patients and their family members. Longer wait times can also be associated with poorer prognosis, although the evidence is inconclusive. Here, we report national wait times for radiation therapy and surgery for localized prostate cancer (pca) and the effect of wait time on patient perceptions of their care. RESULTS: Treatment wait times showed substantial interprovincial variation. The longest 90th percentile wait times for radiation therapy and surgery were, respectively, 40 days and 105 days. In all provinces, waits for radiation therapy were longer for pca patients than for patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. In the focus groups and interviews conducted with 47 men treated for pca, many participants did not perceive that wait times for treatment were prolonged. Those who experienced delays between diagnosis and treatment voiced issues with a lack of communication about when they would receive treatment and a lack of support or information to make an informed decision about treatment. Minimizing treatment delays was an aspect of the cancer journey that participants would like to change because of the stress it caused. CONCLUSIONS: Although wait time statistics are useful, a review of cancer control in Canada cannot be considered complete unless an effort is made to give voice to the experiences of individuals with cancer. The findings presented here are intended to provide a snapshot of national care delivery for localized pca and to identify opportunities for improvement in clinical practice.
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 | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".