MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Results of a pilot study of a web-based care plan to meet the communication needs of breast cancer survivors and their primary care physicians.

2011· article· en· W2560724357 on OpenAlexaff
Rashida Haq, Fok Han Leung, Daisy Dastur, Natalie A. Baker, Lineke Heus, B. Li, Janet Parsons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupMedicineFeelingInformation needsNeeds assessmentBreast cancerStakeholderQualitative researchMedical educationNursingCancerPsychologyWorld Wide WebComputer scienceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

200 Background: Following treatment, breast cancer patients (BCPs) can feel “lost in transition”. Family practitioners (FP) also report feeling ill-equipped to provide follow-up care to breast cancer patients. In this 3-phase qualitative pilot study we designed, implemented and evaluated a multi-faceted care plan (MCP) to address the information/communication needs of BCPs and their FPs. Methods: We first conducted focus groups and interviews with 35 participants from 3 stakeholder groups (BCPs, FPs and oncology team), to identify specific information and communication needs. A MCP was designed based on these findings. The MCP was then evaluated via focus groups and interviews with 26 participants. Interviews and focus groups were audiotaped, transcribed and content analysed for emergent themes and patterns. Results: Pre-implementation, participants identified communication needs pertinent to BCPs and FPs. Patients commented that web-based, paper-based and human resources components are essential to any care plan. Patients did not focus solely on the post-treatment period, but rather spoke of evolving needs throughout their cancer journey. FPs indicated that any tools to support them must distill important information in a readily accessible and easy-to-use format. Based on this needs assessment, a MCP was designed and implemented for BCPs and FPs. This consisted of tailored websites, as well as paper-based care plans and a patient booklet. Patients provided positive feedback about the MCP, indicating that it was effective at addressing many of their needs and commented “I wish I’d had this before”. Suggestions for future improvements to the MCP included greater emphasis on health-and-wellness post-treatment. In addition, some patients voiced resistance to the terms “survivor” and “survivorship” in materials, as they did not self-identify with such terms. Conclusions: This MCP shows promise in addressing the information/communication needs of BCPs and FPs who care for them. Next steps include tool refinement, further evaluation, and planning for more extensive implementation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207