AN INTEGRATED SUPPORT AND INFORMATION CENTRE IN A LARGE UK CANCER CENTRE ESTABLISHED IN 1993 & REPLICATED IN MORE THAN 60 UNITS ACROSS THE UK AND AUSTRALIA.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Established in 1993 after a 2-year consultation between professionals and cancer patients, the Lynda Jackson Macmillan Centre (LJMC) has been a catalyst for change in the United Kingdom. The Centre began with a small core staff in a purpose-built building next to a cancer centre, networking with outreach workers in 12 surrounding hospitals, with a mission to improve information, communication, and support for cancer patients. Since 1996, the LJMC model has been adopted and developed by the charity Macmillan Cancer Support and has been spread to more than 60 units across the United Kingdom and Australia.Introducing complementary therapies (CAMS) to a cancer centre was a particular early challenge. Establishing a shared understanding of the role of complementary therapies and developing nationally accredited written information about them, credible recruitment and governance procedures for therapy practitioners, agreed outcome measures, and peer-reviewed evaluation and research have all been important in engaging cancer physicians and managers; however, charitable funding is still required to support free access to most complementary therapies.An integrated supportive care service for cancer patients begins with a shift in the culture of cancer treatment organizations, moving from a professional-centred to a patient-centred agenda. Real reach and impact requires "new" ideas and services to be integrated into the routine practice of the cancer care delivery organizations. A key lesson learned over the last 15 years is that an integrated support centre must continually adapt to be viable. Sustaining meaningful user guidance is a particular challenge. Support for self-management and the testing and development of CAM services are growing parts of the portfolio.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.054 | 0.011 |
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".