Patient Real-Time and 12-Month Retrospective Perceptions of Difficult Communications in the Cancer Diagnostic Period
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communication is a notoriously complex challenge in the cancer care context. Our program of research involves exploration of patient-provider communications across the cancer trajectory from the patient perspective.Toward this end, we have been following a cohort of 60 cancer patients, representing a range of tumor sites, from immediately after diagnosis through to recovery, chronic, or advanced disease. Drawing on interpretive description analytic techniques, we documented patterns and themes related to various components of the cancer journey. In this article, we report on findings pertaining to poor communication during the initial diagnostic period, as described by patients at the time of diagnosis and 1 year later.These findings illuminate the dynamics of communication problems during that complex period, and depict the mechanisms by which patients sought to confront these challenges to optimize their cancer care experience. On the basis of these findings, considered in the context of the body of available evidence, suggestions are proposed as to appropriate directions for system-level solutions to the complex communication challenges within cancer care.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".