Understanding the patient experience of cancer treatment in Ontario, Canada: A qualitative study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
225 Background: In cancer care, patient experience is most often measured quantitatively. However, this approach has limitations in understanding the entire patient experience. Qualitative methods provide an opportunity to understand self reported and more complex issues most important to patients and their family members. This qualitative study explores the patient experience of outpatient cancer treatment throughout Ontario, Canada. Methods: Qualitative content analysis was done by two researchers using data from the annual Ambulatory Oncology Patient Satisfaction Survey (AOPSS) from 2013-15. The AOPSS is a retrospective, paper-based, mailed survey, designed to capture the experiences of patients who are currently receiving cancer treatment or who have received cancer treatment within the previous six months. Patients surveyed were asked “Is there anything else you would like to tell us about your cancer care services?” The National Research Corporation of Canada’s eight dimensions of patient-centred care was used to guide the analysis. Results: 5,391 patients responded to the open-ended question. Demographic information includes: gender, age, education level and disease site. 7,328 coded responses were generated, of which 3,658 (49.9%) were related to eight dimensions of patient-centred care with accompanying sub-dimensions: patients’ preferences (23.5%): dignity and respect; preferences and decision-making; care provider behaviours; emotional support (21.5%): caring, compassion and comfort; anxiety and stress; resources; and sensitive diagnosis; coordination of care (15.8%): care provider and treatment coordination; wait times; information and education (15.7%): patient-care provider communication; information needs; care provider knowledge and skills; access (9.4%): centre location; transportation and accommodation; system; parking; continuity and transition (8.1%): centre personnel; continuity between departments; continuity in the community; discharge; physical comfort (5.1%): environment; pain management and family and friends (0.8%). Conclusions: Qualitative analysis is an effective tool to capture patient experience on a population level.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".