Survivorship Care Plans: A Work in Progress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health agencies across the world have echoed the recommendation of the U.S. Institute of Medicine (iom) that survivorship care plans (scps) should be provided to patients upon completion of treatment. To date, reviews of scps have been limited to the United States. The present review offers an expanded scope and describes how scps are being designed, delivered, and evaluated in various countries. METHODS: We collected scps from Canada, the United States, Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. We selected for analysis the scps for which we could obtain the actual scp, information about the delivery approach, and evaluation data. We conducted a content analysis and compared the scps with the iom guidelines. RESULTS: Of 47 scps initially identified, 16 were analyzed. The scps incorporated several of the iom's guidelines, but many did not include psychosocial services, identification of a key point of contact, genetic testing, and financial concerns. The model of delivery instituted by the U.K. National Cancer Survivorship Initiative stands out because of its unique approach that initiates care planning at diagnosis and stratifies patients into a follow-up program based on self-management capacities. SUMMARY: There is considerable variation in the approach to delivery and the extent to which scps follow the original recommendations from the iom. We discuss the implications of this review for future care-planning programs and prospective research. A holistic approach to care that goes beyond the iom recommendations and that incorporates care planning from the point of diagnosis to beyond completion of treatment might improve people's experience of cancer care.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".