Canadian oncologist communication about prognosis disclosure with their terminally-ill patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6554 Background: Prior research indicates that oncologists are reluctant to discuss prognosis (prog) with their terminally-ill cancer patients (tcp), yet physician attitudes have not been well described. Methods: We surveyed Canadian medical oncologists' (mo) self-reported behaviors, beliefs and attitudes regarding prog communication (comm) with their tcp. Following a pre-notification letter, surveys were mailed to a systematic sample of 335 mo with Canadian addresses listed in the 2005 ASCO and RCPSC Members Directory. Results: Surveys were mailed with a $5 cash incentive in April, 2006. 196 surveys were completed and returned (59% response rate). Median age of respondents (res) is 44 (29–73); 66% men; 54% at university affliated institution. Res have practiced a median 11 years (1- 43) and see a median 45 (6–300) patients/week. Answering yes or no, 99% of res say their usual practice is to tell their tcp they will eventually die of their disease. Choosing from closed-ended responses: 34% say they always discuss prog, 50% discuss prog only after asking their tcp if they want the information, and 16% discuss it only if their tcp ask for the information. 34% say they always or usually communicate a timeframe as to when death may occur and 50% sometimes, rarely, or never give a timeframe. If they do not tell a tcp their prog, 19% always, 22% usually, 28% sometimes, and 24% rarely or never tell family or friends. 92% are always or usually satisfied with their prog comm. 92% say their tcp are always or usually satisfied with the comm. 96% believe prog comm education should be part of cancer-care training. 40% say such education was either absent or inadequate during their training. Older mo(<45y) were less likely to report always/usually telling their tcp timeframe re prog (OR=0.69; p=0.02) as were those who did not receive training (OR=0.35; p<0.00). Qualitative data has also been collected about: clinical factors affecting mo prog comm, associated emotions, and examples of recent prog comm. Conclusions: Almost all Canadian mo report that they tell their tcp that they have a known life-ending prog. When they do not tell their tcp they frequently tell family or friends. Most Canadian mo say they provide a prognostic timeframe to their tcp re: time left to live. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".