Views of Breast and Colorectal Cancer Survivors on Their Routine Follow-Up Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our understanding of optimum health care delivery for cancer survivors is limited by the lack of a patient-centred perspective. The objectives of the present study were to explore the views of breast and colorectal cancer survivors on their routine follow-up care, with respect to needs, preferences, and quality of follow-up, and their views on cancer specialist- compared with family physician (fp)-led follow-up care. METHODS: In Nova Scotia, Canada, 23 cancer survivors (13 breast, 10 colorectal) participated in either a focus group or a one-on-one interview. Participants were asked to reflect upon their lives as cancer survivors and on the type and quality of care and support they received during the follow-up period. Each focus group or interview was transcribed verbatim, and the transcripts were audited and subjected to a thematic analysis. RESULTS: SIX THEMES WERE IDENTIFIED: My care is my responsibilityHow I receive information on follow-up careI have many care needsI want to be prepared and informedThe role of my fp in my cancer experience and follow-up careThe role of media Survivors often characterized the post-primary treatment experience as lacking in information and preparation for follow-up and providing inadequate support to address many of the care needs prevalent in survivor populations. Despite valuing fp participation in follow-up care, many survivors continued to receive comfort and reassurance from specialist care. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings point to the need to implement strategies that better prepare breast cancer and colorectal cancer survivors for post-treatment care and that reassure survivors of the ability of their fp to provide quality care during this period.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".