Primary care physician use across the breast cancer care continuum: CanIMPACT study using Canadian administrative data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe primary care physician (PCP) use and continuity of PCP care across the breast cancer care continuum. DESIGN: Population-based, retrospective cohort study using provincial cancer registries linked to health administrative databases. SETTING: British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: All women with incident invasive breast cancer from 2007 to 2012 in Manitoba and Ontario and from 2007 to 2011 in British Columbia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and proportions of visits to PCPs were determined. Continuity of care was measured using the Usual Provider of Care index calculated as the proportion of visits to the most-often-visited PCP in the 6 to 30 months before a breast cancer diagnosis (baseline) and from 1 to 3 years following a breast cancer diagnosis (survivorship). RESULTS: More than three-quarters of patients visited their PCPs 2 or more times during the breast cancer diagnostic period, and more than 80% of patients had at least 1 PCP visit during breast cancer adjuvant treatment. Contact with the PCP decreased over time during breast cancer survivorship. Of the 3 phases, women appeared to be most likely to not have PCP contact during adjuvant treatment, with 10.7% (Ontario) to 18.7% (British Columbia) of women having no PCP visits during this phase. However, a sizable minority of women had at least monthly visits during the treatment phase, particularly in Manitoba and Ontario, where approximately a quarter of women saw a PCP at least monthly. We observed higher continuity of care with PCPs in survivorship (compared with baseline) in all provinces. CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians were generally involved throughout the breast cancer care continuum, but the level of involvement varied across care phases and by province. Future interventions will aim to further integrate primary and oncology care.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".