Travelling for radiation cancer treatment: Patient satisfaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted for the purpose of describing cancer patients' satisfaction with their care when they had to travel unexpectedly away from home for treatment. Ontario initiated a rereferral program for cancer patients who needed radiation therapy when the waiting lists in southern Ontario became lengthy. Patients travelled to the United States or northern Ontario for their care. A standardized survey containing 25 items with five-point Likert scale responses was mailed to all patients who participated in the rereferral program, following completion of their treatment. Items covered patient experiences before leaving home, in preparing for travel, and staying at the cancer facilities away from home. A total of 466 (55.8%) patients returned the survey. Overall, patients were satisfied with their care. However, there were a number of areas identified by patients where improvements could be made. These areas included access to support prior to leaving home, access to information about supportive care services while away from home, and sensitivity to personal needs in making arrangements for travel. Provision of information and support are important to cancer patients having to travel for cancer treatment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".