Evaluation of Patient Satisfaction in Outpatient Radiation Oncology Department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Nowadays cancer patients want more detailed information and greater participation in decisions about their care. As a consequence, the demands on health care system to satisfy the complex care needs of oncology patients have increased tremendously. Methods and Materials: As part of a quality improvement exercise at the Radiation Oncology department, Allan Blair Cancer Center, Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada, a survey was undertaken to ascertain the level of patient satisfaction with the information and care they were receiving from their care team during their first interaction with physicians till they finish radiation. In addition, the patients’ anxiety levels during radiation were investigated as well. Both questionnaires were given to patients on first day of their radiotherapy and after the completion of their radiotherapy.Results: Total of 122 patients were enrolled in the study and 100 of them both questionnaires pre and post radiation therapy. Majority of patients were satisfied with information they received regarding their illness (94%) and treatment toxicity (81%), but few less satisfied with the information they received regarding lifestyle issues such as diet, exercise, time off work, sexuality and smoking. The patients showed a statistically significant reduction in both their State and Trait Anxiety scores following radiotherapy (p<0.001). The results of the two-sample t-test were significantly lower in post radiation period (State trait r = 0.521, Anxiety trait r=0.701). Conclusions: Research has established many barriers for proper communication. The initial meeting should be unhurried and there is a risk that contents may not be grasped so, there should be planned repetitions. Several repetitions and subsequent visits may be needed for a patient to hear what is said, respond to it, and retain this information in their mind.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".