MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2761558774 · doi:10.1093/pch/20.5.e82a

133: Are They Expecting Too much? – Unrealistic Expectations About Adult Healthcare in Teenaged Childhood Cancer Survivors

2015· article· en· W2761558774 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R Wang, Iqra Syed, RD Barr, Norma Mammone D’Agostino, Paul C. Nathan, Anne F. Klassen

Bibliographic record

VenuePaediatrics & Child Health · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAttendanceChildhood cancerHealth careFamily medicineYoung adultScale (ratio)CancerGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With advancements in therapies, most children diagnosed with cancer will survive their initial malignancy. However, they are at risk of developing various treatment-related late effects that can manifest years after completion of therapy. Long-term follow-up (LTFU) care is crucial to the identification and management of late effects in childhood cancer survivors. Yet, research shows that many survivors fail to transfer to LTFU after discharge from a pediatric setting or subsequently drop out as adults. For some patients, the differences encountered in the delivery and organization of care between pediatric and adult centres may act as barriers to attendance in LTFU care. Recognizing that many differences exist between pediatric and adult care services, we aim to describe adolescent childhood cancer survivors' beliefs/expectations about the nature of adult healthcare. Survivors of cancer in childhood or adolescence, between 15 to 19 years of age, who had not yet transitioned to adult LFTU cancer care, were recruited either in person or through mail. Participants completed a questionnaire which included a demographic survey and a newly developed ‘Expectations scale’. The scale contains 12 items designed to measure survivors' expectations about the nature of adult LTFU care and has been found to be psychometrically valid and reliable. A total of 156 AYA survivors from three Canadian pediatric hospitals completed the scale. Regarding adult LTFU care, 68% of participants expected that the doctor will become like a friend, and 61% expected to spend a lot of time with the doctor during the appointment. Regarding the organization of their care, 87% expected to receive a reminder call before the appointment, while 88% expected to be called if they miss an appointment. Furthermore, 64% of survivors expected the doctor to look after all of their healthcare needs, not just those related to their prior cancer therapy. AYA childhood cancer survivors have specific beliefs/expectations about LTFU care, some of which may contrast with the reality of adult care services. Significant levels of unrealistic expectations may contribute to poor compliance with LTFU care. Prior to transfer, AYA survivors may benefit from preparation and education about the different culture of care that they will likely encounter in order to resolve dissonance and improve transition.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaediatrics & Child Health→Same topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→