MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

What are the supportive care service needs of recently diagnosed cancer patients? Results of a population based study

2005· article· en· W2249258003 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jonathan Sussman, Timothy J. Whelan, Eva Grunfeld, Andy Willan, S. Sellick, Mary Ann O’Brien, Susan Schiff, A. Edwardson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsCancer Care Nova Scotia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespondentPopulationFamily medicineSocioeconomic statusAttendanceDemographyCancer registryBreast cancerCancerGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

8096 Background: Previous studies have suggested that a substantial proportion of recently diagnosed cancer patients may have unmet supportive care needs. As part of a cancer supportive care initiative in the province of Ontario Canada, we evaluated patients’ need, use and access to supportive care services. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional population based survey of patients with breast, colorectal and prostate cancers randomly selected from a provincial registry who were within 12 months of diagnosis was performed in 3 representative regions of the province of Ontario, Canada between June 2001 and April 2003. A validated, self- completed supportive care questionnaire that reviewed 46 unique core supportive care services was mailed to patients. Respondents indicated whether a particular service type was needed and used during the previous 12 months. Need and use scores were tabulated by adding the number of services chosen (score range 0–46). Access was measured by the gap between need and use of services. Demographic variables were collected to study predictive factors for need and use. Results: Responses were obtained from 2733 patients representing an adjusted response rate of 76%. Mean respondent age was 65.9 years with 51% of respondents being female. 83.5% attended a cancer centre in the previous 12 months. Mean need score from all respondents was 10.8 (SD 6.9). Need scores appeared highest for Information, Psychological and Physical Services. On multivariate regression, a higher need was predicted by: lower age, gender (female), non-attendance at a cancer centre, lower socioeconomic status, and disease type (breast) (all P<.001). Mean use score for all respondents was 8.7 (SD 5.1). In fewer than 10% of respondents a gap between need and use was recorded. Conclusions: Cancer patients reported need and use of few specific supportive care services in this population based survey. In contrast to previous studies, access did not appear to be a significant problem based on a small gap between need and use of services. Patient reported needs varied by a number of demographic factors. These findings are important for the planning of supportive care services in cancer centres and communities. 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.261

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.085
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→