MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Results of a randomized controlled study of personalized care plans in breast cancer survivors from a single institution.

2015· article· en· W2478905890 on OpenAlexaff
Rashida Haq, Christine Brezden‐Masley, Ronita Lee, Suzanne Richter, Ralph George, Jory S. Simpson, Julia Rackal, Fok Han Leung, Aleksandra Jovičić, Amy Kong, Benjamin Li, Pauline Gulasingam, Tara Jainudeen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerRandomized controlled trialIntervention (counseling)Physical therapyInformed consentCancerInternal medicineFamily medicineAlternative medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

109 Background: In 2006, Institute of Medicine recommended care plans for coordination of care of cancer survivors. Our pilot study of multifaceted care plans met information and communication needs of breast cancer (BC) survivors and their primary care providers (PCP). In this study, a Personalized Multifaceted Care Plan (PMCP) was developed, implemented and evaluated. Methods: This was a randomized study with mixed methods design. Upon REB approval, 78 women diagnosed with invasive BC for adjuvant treatments were recruited from the breast clinic from June 2013 to March 2015. After informed consent, participants were randomized to the control or the intervention group and stratified to chemotherapy (CT) vs. endocrine therapy (ET). The intervention group received a PMCP (paper based treatment and care plans (TP & CP) with information on breast pathology, treatment sequence, supportive care and follow-up guidelines with access to a website). CT arm patients received a TP at the start of therapy and a CP at completion. ET patients received the CP upfront. Quantitative outcomes were assessed by 3 standardized questionnaires at baseline and following treatment. Within-group baseline and post-intervention scores were compared using paired t-tests. The post-intervention control group and intervention group’s scores were compared using unpaired t-tests. In the intervention group, qualitative analysis was done through focus groups of BC survivors & PCP interviews. Results: Baseline scores in the mean intervention and control groups were similar. In the CT arm of the intervention group, post-intervention scores on Communication and Efficacy Scale showed statistically significant increase (p < 0.05, 95% CI). Results in the control group and in the intervention group of patients on ET were not significantly different. Focus group participants commented that the PMCP helped them feel ‘educated’ and engaged in their cancer treatment and their PCPs found the PMCP contained useful, concise medical summaries. Conclusions: Upfront PMCP improves self-efficacy scores in patients on CT. Qualitative analysis substantiates the benefits of PMCP. PMCP should be standard of care in BC survivors receiving CT.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.110
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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