Interprofessional patient-centred practice in oncology teams: utopia or reality?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies on interprofessional practice usually report professionals' viewpoints and document organizational, procedural and relational factors influencing that practice. Considering the importance of interprofessional patient-centred (IPPC) practice, it seems necessary to describe it in detail in an actual context of care, from the perspective of patients, their families and health-care professionals. The goal of this study was to describe IPPC practice throughout the continuum of cancer care. A qualitative multiple case study was completed with two interprofessional teams from a Canadian teaching hospital. Interviews were conducted with patients, their families and professionals, and observation was carried out. Three themes were illustrated by current team practice: welcoming the person as a unique individual, but still requiring the patient to comply; the paradoxical coexistence of patient-centred discourse and professional-centred practice; and triggering team collaboration with the culmination of the patient's situation. Several influential factors were described, including the way the team works; the physical environment; professionals' and patients'/family members' stance on the collaboration; professionals' stance on patients and their families; and patients' stance on professionals. Finally, themes describing the desired IPPC practice reflect the wish of most participants to be more involved. They were: providing support in line with the patient's experience and involvement; respecting patients by not imposing professionals' values and goals; and consistency and regularity in the collaboration of all members.
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 | 0.025 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".