From rhetoric to reality: including patient voices in supportive cancer care planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore the extent and manner of patient participation in the planning of regional supportive care networks throughout the province of Ontario. We consider the disconnect between the rhetoric and reality of patient involvement in network planning and co-ordination. CONTEXT: In 1997, the Province of Ontario, Canada, established a new, regionalized cancer care system. By transferring responsibility to the regional level and to networks, the architects of the new provincial system hoped to broaden participation in decision making and to enhance the responsiveness of decisions to communities. RESEARCH APPROACH: Through a qualitative, multiple case study approach we evaluated the processes of involving patients in network development. In-depth, semi-structured interviews and document analysis were complemented by observations of provincial meetings, regional council and network meetings. RESULTS: The network development processes in the three case study regions reveal a significant gap between intentions to involve patients in health planning and their actual involvement. This gap can be explained by: (i) a lack of clear direction regarding networks and patient participation in these networks; (ii) the dominance of regional cancer centres in network planning activities; and, (iii) the emergence of competing provincial priorities. DISCUSSION: These three trends expose the complexity of the notion of public participation and how it is embedded in social and political contexts. The failed attempt at involving patients in health planning efforts is the result of benign neglect of public participation intents and the social and political contexts in which public and patient participation is meant to occur.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".