Evaluation of a joint adult and pediatric clinic for cancer survivorship care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The best model of care for long-term follow-up of survivors of childhood cancer is uncertain. We describe the care experience provided by the joint adult/pediatric AfterCare Clinic at the McMaster Children's Hospital. Secondary outcomes include an evaluation of cancer worry, self-management skills, and loss to follow-up rates. METHODS: AfterCare Clinic patients aged 19-29 years were approached for study participation between January and March 2016. Data were collected from a cross-sectional survey, consisting of the Cancer Care Experience Questionnaire (CCEQ), Cancer Worry Scale (CWS), and Self-Management Skills Scale (SMSS). Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Seventy-three (40%) patients participated in the survey, 17 (23%) anonymously. Demographic characteristics of the nonanonymous participants were representative of the total clinic cohort. Most respondents were satisfied with the quality of care and anticipatory guidance provided, demonstrated by the CCEQ responses. Respondents had a high degree of cancer worries (mean score 50.6 [±18.4]), but good self-management skills (72.0 [±10.9]). Our 5-year loss to follow-up rate was 3.8%. Sensitivity analyses showed no difference in responses between the total cohort and the nonanonymous participants. CONCLUSIONS: This sample of young adult survivors of childhood cancer had a higher degree of cancer worries and higher self-management skills scores than a younger cohort of survivors of childhood cancer in the literature. Given this, along with the positive care experience reported, and the low loss to follow-up rate, the joint adult/pediatric model of survivorship care appears to be meeting the needs of this population.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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.
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".