MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726882750 · doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2044-y

Effectiveness of an intervention to improve supportive care for family caregivers of patients with lung cancer: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2017· article· en· W2726882750 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Michèle Aubin, Lucie Vézina, René Verreault, Sébastien Simard, Jean‐François Desbiens, Lise Tremblay, Serge Dumont, Lise Fillion, Maman Joyce Dogba, Pierre Gagnon

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecCentres Intégré Universitaires de Santé et de Services SociauxQuebec - Clinical Research Organization in CancerInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de QuébecMichel-Sarrazin
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéInstitut universitaire de cardiologie et de pneumologie de Québec, Université Laval
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialDistressHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleLung cancerClinical endpointQuality of life (healthcare)Intervention (counseling)AnxietyClinical trialFamily medicineCancerPhysical therapyNursingInternal medicinePsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Family caregivers (FC) often experience higher distress levels than their relative with cancer. Many cancer centers have implemented distress screening programs, but most of them concentrate their efforts on patients, with little attention to their FC. To fill this gap, a pragmatic intervention has been designed to improve supportive care for FC of patients with lung cancer. This article describes the study protocol of a single-center randomized controlled trial to assess its effectiveness. METHODS/DESIGN: A total of 120 lung cancer patients and their FC are randomly assigned to the experimental group (exposed to intervention, N = 60) or to the control group (usual care, N = 60). The intervention includes: (1) systematic FC distress screening and problem assessment near their relative's cancer diagnosis, and every 2 months, (2) privileged contact with an oncology nurse (ON) away from the patient to address FC problems and (3) liaison by the ON with the family physician of FC reporting high distress (thermometer score ≥5/10), or problems relying on FP expertise. In both groups, FC, patient and process-of-care outcomes are measured at baseline and every 3 months, up to 9 months. The primary endpoint is FC distress measured by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Psychological Distress Index used in the Quebec Health Survey (PDQHS). Individual interviews with 10 FC and a focus group with the oncology team will be conducted at the study end to further document the effectiveness of the intervention and its impact on quality of life (for FC) and practice organization (for the oncology team). DISCUSSION: This trial will assess the effectiveness of an innovative intervention based on interprofessional collaboration between primary care and oncology care. It targets a population in great need, yet often neglected, and has the potential to clearly improve patient and caregiver experience of cancer care, and reduce the burden of disease. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02531464 . Registered on 15 July 2015.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.525

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.392 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207