Oncologists' attitudes towards patient and family-centered care.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
111 Background: Patient and family-centered care (PFCC) represents an evolution from traditional models of provider-focused and patient-focused care that places a strong emphasis on optimal patient communication, patient autonomy, and shared decision-making within care teams. A shift towards PFCC requires participation across all provider groups. Despite the importance of physician buy-in, research examining physicians’ perspectives on PFCC is lacking. We sought to explore oncologists’ familiarity with the principles of PFCC and perceived barriers to implementing principles of PFCC. Methods: In this qualitative exploratory study, we conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 oncologists (8 radiation, 4 medical, 4 surgical, 2 hematologist-oncologists) at a single Canadian academic cancer institution. Interview data were analyzed using coding principles drawn from grounded theory. Constant comparisons were used to identify recurring themes. Results: We identified 3 dominant themes related to physicians’ interpretations of PFCC: 1) Physicians expressed a limited understanding of the formal principles of PFCC, 2) Physicians identified patient autonomy as essential to PFCC and 3) Disparities between patient and physician objectives exist and result in compromises that may affect the quality of PFCC delivered. Oncologists perceived that spending more time with patients improved PFCC, but also recognized that it would leave less time for other necessary activities. Participants also identified a number of ‘system’ barriers to PFCC, including limited staff and clinical space, excessive case load, a lack of physician support and input into operational decisions, and funding constraints. Many felt that PFCC was challenged by inefficiencies in the system of care delivery, and that progress might lie in reorganization to more clearly match health care staff’s roles and responsibilities to their credentials and skills. Conclusions: Advancing PFCC in our institution will require continued education of physicians regarding the principles of PFCC, acknowledgement and preservation of the PFCC behaviors already in practice and creative solutions to address the system issues that may hamper their abilities to enact PFCC.
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".