[Continuity of cancer care in Quebec: beyond the symptoms].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Serious problems in the continuity of medical care provided to cancer patients are a frequent occurrence; the source of these problems is not well understood. The purpose of this research is to determine how these problems arise and how they are perpetuated. DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study based on Anthony Giddens's theory of structuration. SETTING: Four teaching hospitals in the Quebec City region. PARTICIPANTS: Cancer patients (n = 62), family physicians (n = 14), and oncology specialists (n = 13). METHOD: Individual interviews were conducted with breast cancer and lung cancer patients. Their medical files were examined so that they could be ranked according to the stage of their disease. We also conducted individual interviews with a sampling of the patients' family physicians and oncology specialists at the hospitals participating in the study. An analysis of the content of the interviews was performed following the principles of grounded theory. MAIN FINDINGS: When conditions arise that are likely to lead to problems in the continuity of medical care, patients and physicians often try to compensate. Health care providers employ regulation strategies and patients and their families employ substitution strategies. Although these strategies generally get results, they constitute one-time actions by the physician or patient to circumvent a problem. And because they do not address the problem across the system, the source of the problem does not change. CONCLUSION: One of the unintentional consequences of the strategies used by clinicians and patients is the masking of the real issues involved in continuity of care; these strategies actually get in the way of in-depth changes based on the needs of the health care system as a whole.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".