MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2245317519 · doi:10.26443/ijwpc.v1i1.67

Achieving Person-centered Care: The Need for Multiple Strategies

2014· article· en· W2245317519 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Margaret I. Fitch, Irene Nicoll, Fay Bennie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Whole Person Care · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsCanadian Partnership Against CancerHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCLARITYNursingGeneral partnershipStakeholderPalliative careHealth careMedicineDistressBest practiceMedical educationPsychologyPublic relationsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Evidence from patient satisfaction surveys, needs assessments, and stakeholder forums provide a clear picture that cancer patients are not receiving the full range of supportive care services that could be of benefit to them. The cancer system needs to undergo a shift toward person-centered care. Such a cultural shift requires concerted effort and multiple strategies to be successful.Objective: The purpose of the Cancer Journey Action Group of the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer is to provide leadership to achieve person-centered care in the Canadian cancer care system.Methods: The Cancer Journey Action Group has developed and implemented several initiatives to demonstrate how person-centered care can be achieved. The initiatives include programs in screening for distress (6th vital sign), patient navigation, on-line support groups, survivorship care plans projects, cancer transition education, and palliative care/end-of-life education. Tools to support this work have been designed including evidence-based practice guidelines, algorithms, and on-line education modules. Evaluation has focused on program uptake, educational effectiveness, inter-professional teamwork and patient satisfaction.Results: All initiatives have been evaluated by patients/survivors as helpful. Issues of importance to patients/survivors are the focus of conversations with, and assessments by, health care professionals. Critical success factors across the respective programs for achieving person-centered care include clarity of a shared vision, leadership, persistent and concerted effort, and consistent messaging in communications.Conclusions: Demonstration projects undertaken for each topic area have provided an excellent opportunity to learn about best practices to implement the respective approaches. Guiding principles for implementation and relevant tools/resources have been developed as a result. Although progress toward person-centered care is evident, intentional and concerted efforts are necessary to sustain momentum of these efforts in routine clinical practice.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.127
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.084
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1270.084
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.004
Bibliometrics0.0060.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.025
Scholarly communication0.0250.033
Open science0.0090.046
Research integrity0.0130.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.127
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.270 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Whole Person CareSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207