Clinician–Patient Communication: Evidence-Based Recommendations to Guide Practice in Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS OF WORK: To develop recommendations for effective communication between cancer health care providers and patients based on a systematic review of methods of clinician-patient communication that may affect patient outcomes associated with distress at critical points in the course of cancer care. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic review of the literature was conducted, and evidence-based recommendations were formulated to guide clinician-patient communication in cancer care. A formal external review was conducted to validate the relevance of these recommendations. MAIN RESULTS: Recommendations for communication in cancer care are presented, based on guidelines from the Australian National Breast Cancer Centre and the Australian National Cancer Control Initiative,an updated systematic review of the research evidence, and a consensus by the Clinician-Patient Communications Working Panel of the Program in Evidence-Based Care of Cancer Care Ontario. The recommendations were sent to 110 Ontario practitioners for external review: 33 responded (30% response rate). Most of these respondents (87%) agreed with the draft recommendations and approved of their use as a practice guideline (90%). A condensed version of the recommendations, including 10 key points, was also created. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence to support general clinician-patient communication approaches, although the preferences of cancer patients regarding such communication exhibit individual and cultural variability. Recommendations are provided, based on evidence, the consensus of an expert panel, and feedback from a survey of external practitioners. Evidence evaluating the role of decision aids and strategies to facilitate better communication is inconsistent, although such tools may be of value for some patients.
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 | 0.102 | 0.345 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".