Compliance, attitudes and barriers to post‐operative colorectal cancer follow‐up
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Meta-analyses demonstrate that surveillance following curative-intent colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery can improve survival. Our multidisciplinary team adopted a stringent CRC follow-up (FU) guideline in 2000. The purpose of this study was to assess adherence and barriers to FU for CRC. METHODS: Patients with primary CRC aged 19-75 years, treated with curative intent surgery from July 2000 to December 2002 were identified from a prospective database. Compliance with FU was assessed primarily by chart review. We also surveyed patients and providers to explore attitudes and barriers to surveillance adherence using tenets of the Health Belief Model. RESULTS: 96 patients met inclusion criteria and were appropriate for FU. Median FU was 34 months. Guideline targets were met for 70% of clinic visits; 49% of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) determinations; and 62% of abdominal imaging studies. Post-operative colonoscopy did not occur in 6/93 patients. Seventy per cent of health care providers and 55% of patients completed a survey. Access to testing and confusion about which provider orders investigations were identified as important barriers to FU. CONCLUSION: Patterns of CRC FU were widely variable despite implementation of a guideline. Despite patient and provider agreement with the principles of CRC FU, adoption was inhibited by confusion among multiple providers regarding investigation coordination.
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 | 0.005 | 0.041 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".