Multidisciplinary Cancer Conferences: Exploring Obstacles and Facilitators to Their Establishment and Function.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) provide an opportunity for health professionals to discuss diagnosis and treatment options with the goal of providing optimal patient management. No prior studies have explored the experiences of adopting and implementing MCCs in Canada. Methods: Using a grounded theory approach, interviews, participant-observation, and document analysis were triangulated to explore the experiences of implementing MCCs at four hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Constant comparative analysis was used to identify themes and assimilate them into a theoretical understanding of policy, administrative/organizational, and participant contributions to implementing MCCs. Results: Thirty-seven MCCs, in three hospitals, were observed, and 48 interviews were conducted. The core conceptual category was a perceived value for time balance, which was influenced by policy and administrative factors, and themes related to MCC structure and participant interaction. Conclusions: MCC implementation in Ontario is inconsistent. Future efforts should concentrate on a systematic implementation plan involving clinicians and administrators.
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 | 0.014 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".