Disruption or innovation? A qualitative study on the use of electronic patient-physician communication in patients with advanced cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
64 Background: Clinical management of patients with advanced cancer is complex, involving specialized treatment and multiple healthcare providers in different settings. In this context, care coordination and sharing of contextual information is often inadequate, leading to suboptimal continuity of care. Electronic communication has the potential to address these gaps and engage patients in their own care. We studied a web-based tool which assembles the patient, their caregivers and their healthcare providers in a virtual space for team-based communication. We sought to understand participant perceptions on electronic communication in general, and the added value of the new tool in particular. Methods: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study with participants (patients with advanced cancer, caregivers, cancer physicians) who participated in a 3-month pilot trial evaluating the tool. Interviews were thematically analyzed and the perspectives from patients, caregivers and cancer physicians were triangulated. Results: We identified five themes relating participants’ perspectives on electronic communication to their experience of care: 1) apparent gaps in care; 2) uncertainty in defining the circle of care; 3) relational aspects of communication; 4) incongruence between technology and social norms of patient-physician communication; and 5) appreciation but apprehension about the role of the electronic communication tool for improving the experience of care. Conclusions: The potential of tools for electronic communication to bring together a team of healthcare providers with the patient and caregivers is significant but may pose new challenges to existing team structure and interpersonal dynamics. Patients and physicians were worried about the impact that electronic communication may have on the patient-physician relationship. Implementation approaches which build on the relationship, and integrate the team as a whole, could positively position electronic communication to enhance team-based care.
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 | 0.024 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".