Psychosocial oncology quality indicators prioritization exercise.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
277 Background: One of Cancer Care Ontario’s (CCO) roles is to monitor and report on cancer system performance to support quality improvement. CCO’s Psychosocial Oncology (PSO) program developed a measurement plan with potential indicators to evaluate patient access to and the effectiveness of PSO services across the province. The objective of this study was to conduct a modified Delphi process to build consensus and prioritize PSO indicators based on their relevance to provincial goals, ability to measure regional and provincial performance and result in tangible actions. Methods: Through consultations and literature reviews, 16 measurement concepts were identified as quality indicators for the PSO Program. Members of the PSO Provincial Committee (n = 32) evaluated each indicator based on set criteria: relevance, outcome-focused, directional, and actionable. Two rounds of input was gathered through a structured worksheet with a minimum response rate of 60%. Round one was based on a simple ‘Yes or No’ response to the indicators’ ability to meet the defined criteria. Participants were encouraged to comment on each indicator and suggest new indicators. Indicators not meeting at least half of the evaluation criteria, on average, were removed from the list. Net new indicators suggested by at least 10% of respondents were included in round two. In round two, members rated each indicator on a scale of 1-5, indicating to what degree the indicator met the evaluation criteria. Results: After round one, the original list was narrowed from sixteen to nine indicators. Four new indicators were also added. After round two, three indicators were identified as meeting the evaluation criteria: 1) wait times to specialized PSO services, 2) access to registered dietitian services by the head and neck cancer population, and 3) documented follow-up with patients with anxiety and/or depression. Prioritized indicators were reviewed with the PSO Committee and CCO senior leadership to confirm direction. Conclusions: The prioritization exercise provided consensus across divergent perspectives and identified top priorities. Work is underway to further develop/refine these indicators for provincial reporting.
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 | 0.022 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.007 |
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".