Survivorship Services for Adult Cancer Populations: A Pan-Canadian Guideline
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to develop evidence-based recommendations for the organization and structure of cancer survivorship services, and best-care practices to optimize the health and well-being of post-primary treatment survivors. This review sought to determine the optimal organization and care delivery structure for cancer survivorship services, and the specific clinical practices and interventions that would improve or maximize the psychosocial health and overall well-being of adult cancer survivors. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic search of the Inventory of Cancer Guidelines at the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, the U.S. National Guideline Clearinghouse, the Canadian Medical Association InfoBase, medline (ovid: 1999 through November 2009), embase (ovid: 1999 through November 2009), Psychinfo (ovid: 1999 through November 2009), the Cochrane Library (ovid; Issue 1, 2009), and cinahl (ebsco: 1999 through December 2009). Reference lists of related papers and recent review articles were scanned for additional citations. METHODS: Articles were selected for inclusion as evidence in the systematic review if they reported on organizational system components for survivors of cancer, or on psychosocial or supportive care interventions HOWELL et al. designed for survivors of cancer. Articles were excluded from the systematic review if they focused only on pediatric cancer survivor populations or on populations that transitioned from pediatric cancer to adult services; if they addressed only pharmacologic interventions or diagnostic testing and follow-up of cancer survivors; if they were systematic reviews with inadequately described methods; if they were qualitative or descriptive studies; and if they were opinion papers, letters, or editorials. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Evidence was selected and reviewed by three members of the Cancer Journey Survivorship Expert Panel (SM, TC, TKO). The resulting summary of the evidence was guided further and reviewed by the members of Cancer Journey Survivorship Expert Panel. Fourteen practice guidelines, eight systematic reviews, and sixty-thee randomized controlled trials form the evidence base for this guidance document. These publications demonstrate that survivors benefit from coordinated post-treatment care, including interventions to address specific psychosocial, supportive care, and rehabilitative concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Ongoing high-quality research is essential to optimize services for cancer survivors. Interventions that promote healthy lifestyle behaviours or that address psychosocial concerns and distress appear to improve physical functioning, psychosocial well-being, and quality of life for survivors.
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 | 0.019 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".