Impact of Providing Audiotapes of Primary Adjuvant Treatment Consultations to Women With Breast Cancer: A Multisite, Randomized, Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Women with breast cancer were provided with an audiotape of their primary adjuvant treatment consultation, and the following patient outcomes were measured at 12 weeks postconsultation: perceived degree of information provision, audiotape satisfaction and use, communication satisfaction with oncologist, mood state, and cancer-specific quality of life. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants included 628 women newly diagnosed with breast cancer and 40 oncologists from six cancer centers in Canada. The patients were block randomized to one of four consultation groups: standard care control, not audiotaped; audiotaped, no audiotape given; audiotaped, patient given audiotape; and audiotaped, patient offered choice of receiving audiotape or not. RESULTS: Patients receiving the consultation audiotape had significantly better recall of having discussed side effects of treatment than patients who did not receive the audiotape. Audiotape benefit was not significantly related to patient satisfaction with communication, mood state, or quality of life at 12 weeks postconsultation, and was not significantly affected by choice of receiving the audiotape. Patients rated the audiotape intervention positively, with an average score of 83.9 of 100. CONCLUSION: Audiotape provision benefits patients by facilitating their perception of being informed about treatment side effects, but does not significantly influence patient satisfaction with communication, mood state, or quality of life.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".