Involvement of Family Physicians in the Care of Cancer Patients Seen in the Palliative Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: It is important for cancer patients to maintain continuity of care with their family physician (FP) while being followed at the cancer center. The primary objective of this study was to determine the perception of patients seen in the palliative Rapid Response Radiotherapy Program (RRRP) on FP involvement in their cancer care. Secondary objectives were to identify factors predicting for perceived FP involvement in patient cancer care. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive patients were approached for study enrollment at the time of RRRP visit and asked to complete a 15-item survey. RESULTS: Three hundred sixty-five patients were accrued over 15 months. Ninety-eight percent had an FP, and 43% felt their FP was involved in their cancer care. Eighty percent of patients were satisfied with the overall medical care provided by their FP, and 71% had been with their FP for > or = 5 years. The most common reason patients gave for perceiving limited FP involvement was the medical oncologist looking after all of their cancer needs. Multivariate analysis found that satisfaction with overall medical care provided by the FP, shorter time since last FP visit, seeing the FP since cancer diagnosis, and FP providing on-call service for after-hour emergencies all significantly predicted for patients perceiving FP involvement in their cancer care. CONCLUSION: Less than half of patients surveyed perceived their FP as involved in their cancer care. Encouraging continuity of care between patients and FPs may allow for easier transition of care back to the FP once palliative treatment at the cancer center has finished and help facilitate end-of-life planning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".