Wellness beyond Cancer Program: Building an Effective Survivorship Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Wellness Beyond Cancer Program (wbcp) was launched in 2012, first accepting patients with colorectal cancer (crc) and, subsequently, those with breast cancer (bca), with the aim of standardizing and streamlining the discharge process from our cancer centre. Patients are discharged either to the wbcp nurse practitioner or to their primary care provider (pcp). The program incorporates survivorship care plans (scps) and education classes; it also has a rapid re-entry system in case of recurrence. The objective of this paper is to describe the process by which a cancer survivorship program was developed at our institution and to present preliminary evaluation results. METHODS: Qualitative surveys were mailed to patients and pcps 1 year after patients had been referred to the wbcp. The surveys addressed knowledge of the program content, satisfaction on the part of patients and providers, and whether scp recommendations were followed. Questions were scored on the level of agreement with each of a list of statements (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree). RESULTS: From March 2012 to November 2014, 2630 patients were referred to the wbcp (809 with crc, 1821 with bca). Surveys were received from 289 patients and 412 pcps. Patients and pcps gave similar scores (average: 4) to statements about satisfaction; pcps gave scores below 4 to statements about communication with the wbcp. CONCLUSIONS: At 1 year after discharge, patients and pcps were satisfied with program content, but there is an opportunity to improve on communication and provision of cancer-specific information to the pcps. Using the wbcp to ensure a safe transition to the most appropriate health care provider, we have standardized the discharge process for crc and bca patients.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".