Access to Care and Satisfaction in Colorectal Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study described the various components of access to care for resectable colorectal cancer, and correlated the timeliness of these components with patient satisfaction. With a prospective/retrospective cohort design, all patients undergoing surgical resection for primary colorectal cancer from 2/1/01 to 15/12/01, were identified during their admission for surgery. A comprehensive, standardized method of ascertaining specific time intervals, which included a patient interview, was used. A patient satisfaction questionnaire was developed, tested, and used in consenting patients. Over the study period, 118 patients underwent colorectal cancer resection. Of these, 110 (93%) consented to participate and 101 (86%) completed the satisfaction questionnaire, including test-retest. The median time intervals (interquartile range) for the various components of access to care were as follows: symptoms to first physician visit, 32 days (10-75); first physician visit to diagnosis, 88 days (44-218); diagnosis to surgery, 19 days (10-44); surgery to chemotherapy (where applicable), 54 days (47-72). On multivariate analysis, tumor location in the rectum was associated with longer prediagnosis intervals, whereas increasing tumor stage was associated with shorter intervals from diagnosis to surgery. Variation in the time interval from diagnosis to surgery was associated with patient satisfaction (r = 0.49; P < 0.0001). Substantially less correlation was identified between patient satisfaction and the time from first physician visit to diagnosis (r = 0.25, P = 0.04). No significant correlation was identified between patient satisfaction scores and the time interval from symptoms to first physician visit (r = 0.11; P = 0.7). Despite concerns regarding surgical waitlists, the longest time intervals experienced by colorectal cancer patients precede diagnosis. However, variations in the relatively short time period from diagnosis to surgery appeared to have the most impact on patient satisfaction. Interventions which improve the timeliness of specific components of access to care may not necessarily result in improved patient satisfaction.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".