MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2752006635 · doi:10.14740/jocmr3160w

Lack of Needs Assessment in Cancer Survivorship Care and Rehabilitation in Hospitals and Primary Care Settings

2017· article· en· W2752006635 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Charlotte Handberg, Charlotte Maria Jensen, Thomas Maribo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurvivorship curveRehabilitationCancer survivorshipCancerPrimary careFamily medicinePhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Formalized and systematic assessment of survivorship care and rehabilitation needs is prerequisite for ensuring cancer patients sufficient help and support through their cancer trajectory. Patients are often uncertain as to how to express and address their survivorship care and rehabilitation needs, and little is known about specific, unmet needs and the plans necessary to meet them. There is a call for both ensuring survivorship care and rehabilitation for cancer patients in need and further for documenting the specific needs related to the cancer disease and its treatment. Thus the aim of this study was to describe specific survivorship care and rehabilitation needs and plans as stated by patients with cancer at hospitals when diagnosed and when primary care survivorship care and rehabilitation begins. METHODS: Needs assessment forms from cancer patients at two hospitals and two primary care settings were analyzed. The forms included stated needs and survivorship care and rehabilitation plans. All data were categorized using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). RESULTS: Eighty-nine patients at hospitals and 99 in primary care, stated their needs. Around 50% of the patients completed a survivorship care and rehabilitation plan. In total, 666 (mean 7.5) needs were stated by hospital patients and 836 (mean 8.0) by those in primary care. The needs stated were primarily within the ICF component "body functions and structure", and the most frequent needs were (hospitals/primary care) fatigue (57%/67%), reduced muscle strength (55%/67%) and being worried (37%/36%). CONCLUSIONS: The results underpin an urgent need for a systematic procedure to assess needs in clinical practice where cancer patients are being left without survivorship care and rehabilitation needs assessment. Gaining knowledge on needs assessment and the detailed description of needs and plans can facilitate targeted interventions. The findings indicate an urgent need to change the practice culture to be systematic in addressing and identifying survivorship care needs among patients with cancer. Further the findings call for considering the development of a new needs assessment form with involvement of both patients and healthcare professionals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.558
Teacher spread0.402 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Medicine Research→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→