Promoting consultation recording practice in oncology: identification of critical implementation factors and determination of patient benefit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this implementation study were to (i) address the evidentiary, contextual, and facilitative mechanisms that serve to retard or promote the transfer and uptake of consultation recording use in oncology practice and (ii) follow patients during the first few days following receipt of the consultation recording to document, from the patient's perspective, the benefits realized from listening to the recording. METHODS: Nine medical and nine radiation oncologists from cancer centers in three Canadian cities (Calgary, Vancouver, and Winnipeg) recorded their primary consultations for 228 patients newly diagnosed with breast (n = 174) or prostate cancer (n = 54). The Digital Recording Use Semi-Structured Interview was conducted at 2 days and 1 week postconsultation. Each oncologist was provided a feedback letter summarizing the consultation recording benefits reported by their patients. RESULTS: Sixty-nine percent of patients listened to at least a portion of the recording within the first week following the consultation. Consultation recording favorableness ratings were high: 93.6% rated the intervention between 75 and 100 on a 100-point scale. Four main areas of benefit were reported: (i) anxiety reduction; (ii) enhanced retention of information; (iii) better informed decision making; and (iv) improved communication with family members. Eight fundamental components of successful implementation of consultation recording practice were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Further randomized trials are recommended, using standardized measures of the patient-reported benefit outcomes reported herein, to strengthen the evidence base for consultation recording use in oncology 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".