Family physicians' roles in cancer care. Survey of patients on a provincial cancer registry.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe cancer patients' experience of the role of family physicians (FPs) in their care. DESIGN: Mail survey of a random sample of patients from the Manitoba Cancer Registry. SETTING: Manitoba. PARTICIPANTS: Two hundred two adults, 6 to 12 months after diagnosis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion needing different kinds of help from FPs and their rating of FPs' response; FACT-G quality-of-life score. RESULTS: Response rate was 56.6%; two thirds of the sample were in the follow-up phase. Most (91%) had an FP involved in their care, but FP involvement decreased after diagnosis. The most frequently needed kinds of help (with general medical problems, quick referrals, taking extra time, and quick office appointments) were well provided by FPs, but family support was not. Higher quality-of-life scores were associated with more help with general medical problems, more provision of cancer-related information, and more emotional support of patients and their families. CONCLUSION: Family physicians respond well to the most common needs of cancer patients and should be proactive in offering their support to both patients and families.
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".