Communication – the foundation for collaborative relationships amongst providers, and between providers and patients: A case in breast and colorectal cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ObjectivesA national needs assessment was undertaken to determine the challenges, and their underlying causes experienced by Canadian healthcare providers caring for persons with breast or colorectal cancer, in their inter-professional and patient–provider clinical relationships.Methods and sampleA mixed-methods approach using an exploratory qualitative phase (semi-structured interviews), and a confirmatory quantitative phase (online survey) was employed. Sample included 223 providers.ResultsSix challenges associated with patient–provider communication, were identified: providing emotional support, using language that a patient can understand, adjusting to the patient's informational needs, facilitating patients’ participation in screening programs, empowering patients to participate actively in treatment decisions, and balancing treatment with impact on quality of life. Four additional challenges were reflective of inter-professional care issues: communication between oncology team and referring physicians, collective, and systematic medication reconciliation process, facilitation of patients’ navigation through the continuum of care, and referral of patients in psychosocial distress.DiscussionThis study highlighted the importance of assessing communication and collaboration skills and clinical behaviours of healthcare providers in order to provide complete and relevant educational recommendations. These findings could guide the design of educational programs and stimulate reflection amongst healthcare providers on the delivery of care to patients with breast or colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.005 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".