Bringing person-centered care to practice with CCO’s guideline for person-centred care in adult oncology services.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
65 Background: CCO ensures quality cancer care for 16 million residents in Ontario. CCO has identified person-centered care (PCC) as a top strategy in driving the quality agenda. CCO, in collaboration with the Program in Evidence-Based Care, developed a PCC Guideline to set the standard of care for people experiencing cancer in Ontario. A PCC video was developed as a tool for translating this knowledge to support healthcare providers to integrate Guideline recommendations into their practice. Methods: A Guideline Working Group (GWG), including patients and health care providers, conducted a literature review and assessed the quality, relevance and utility of available evidence. An Expert Panel reviewed the decisions of the GWG and an External Review was conducted to validate the final guideline. The PCC video was developed as a tool for knowledge translation by defining fundamental concepts of PCC with the objective of promoting uptake of the guideline. A 4-question survey based on the Kirkpatrick Model was embedded to evaluate the video’s effectiveness. Results: Of 110 articles, only one guideline was found and was therefore reviewed exclusively. The GWG reviewed 68 recommendations, modifying 48, accepting 13 and rejecting 4; for a final set of 65 recommendations. External Review returned 73 responses. A total of 196 health care providers, 134 administrators, 53 patients and 103 others stakeholders participated in the video survey. The results in the table below compare the educational state of PCC before and after the video. Conclusions: CCO has adapted and endorsed 65 recommendations to create a PCC Guideline for adult oncology in Ontario. The results of the video showed that baseline PCC knowledge is poor, and that the PCC Video initiated significant (p = 0.972) growth in this knowledge. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that the video positively affected health care provider's confidence in adopting PCC. Future work is required to promote uptake and utilization of PCC Guideline at system-level. [Table: see text]
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".