Assessing the need for a nurse-led breast cancer telephone follow-up clinic in Alberta, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
111 Background: Routine follow-up of breast cancer (BC) patients is largely transferred to primary care due to limited tertiary care resources and evidence supporting the acceptability and safety of this approach. It is unknown how BC survivors are faring in the community with treatment and surveillance goals, and if there is an unmet need for access to specialist care. Objectives of this cross-sectional study of BC survivors were to examine: concordance with endocrine therapy and follow-up recommendations; perceived need for help with achieving these recommendations; and, perceived need for a telephone follow-up clinic. Methods: Eligible participants were women with stage I-III BC diagnosed June 2006-September 2009 who had been seen in consultation at a tertiary cancer centre (TCC) in Alberta, Canada. 960 potentially eligible women were invited to participate via mail-out from the Alberta Cancer Registry. Consenting participants completed a structured telephone interview. Further patient, disease, endocrine therapy and surveillance data were obtained from the electronic chart and pharmacy databases. Results: 240 participants completed the telephone interview. 68.8% had been discharged from a TCC. 87.1% reported having had a clinical breast examination, and 97.1% with remaining breast tissue reported having had a surveillance mammogram within the past year. Concordance with endocrine therapy varied between pharmacy dispensing records (95.4%) versus self-report (82.0%). Top participant-identified gaps in post-treatment services were: side effect management, achieving body weight and physical activity goals, psychosocial health, and sexual health. 71.7% of participants reported that they would have used a telephone follow-up clinic. Factors associated with telephone follow-up clinic use included younger age, no endocrine therapy, fatigue, and non-urban residence. Conclusions: Concordance with measurable follow-up goals (exam, mammography, endocrine therapy) was better than expected. Despite this, interest in a nurse-led BC telephone follow-up clinic was high. Perceived needs included management of symptoms plus support for life-style behavior change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 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) | 0.003 | 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 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".