Measuring and reporting on system performance across the Canadian cancer control continuum.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
254 Background: The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer’s System Performance initiative is a national, collaborative effort, aimed at reporting pan-Canadian system performance indicators across the cancer control continuum to inform system-wide quality improvements. Methods: This work involved prioritizing indicator development to address quality and cancer continuum dimensions, defining and adopting standardized methodologies, and collecting validated, comparable data from provincial and national sources. Results have been disseminated though a number of general and special topic reports and have been used by policy makers and planners to identify and interpret gaps, variations, and trends to inform quality improvement strategies. An independent evaluation of the impact of this work was conducted in 2012. Results: The Reports, published annually since 2009, include a broad range of performance indicators on prevention, screening, diagnosis and treatment, research, patient experience, survivorship, supportive care, and long-term outcomes. Results show notable differences in performance by province, age and gender, geography (urban/rural), and socio-economic status, including significant variations in clinical practice patterns and concordance with evidence-based surgical, radiation, and systemic therapy guidelines. These are examined along with population risk factors, screening rates, and wait times, to assess relationships with outcome measures, including patient reported outcomes. Special studies, including chart reviews, have been conducted to explain variations, set performance targets, and to help focus quality improvement efforts. The impact evaluation identified substantial uptake of system performance information across the country and a range of specific initiatives informed by the work. Conclusions: This work represents one of the most comprehensive efforts of its kind involving all provincial and national jurisdictions in the sharing and dissemination of standardized performance results, the development of evidence-based national performance targets, and coordinated efforts to use this information to inform system-wide quality improvements in cancer control.
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 | 0.052 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".