The Person-Centred Care Guideline: From Principle to Practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: A standardized definition and approach for the delivery of person-centered care (PCC) in cancer care that is agreed upon by all key policy makers and clinicians is lacking. The PCC Guideline defines core PCC principles to outline a level of service that every person accessing cancer services in Ontario, Canada should expect to receive. This article describes the dissemination of the PCC Guideline in practice. Methods: Three strategies were utilized: (1) educational intervention via a PCC video, (2) media engagement, and (3) research/knowledge user networks. Results: As of October 2016, the PCC video has been viewed 7745 times across 92 countries. Significant mean differences pre- and post-PCC video were found for understanding of PCC principles ( P < .001) and perceived ability to bring these PCC principles to practice ( P < .001). Through content analysis, the PCC Guideline recommendations were referenced 236 times, with “Enabling Patients to Actively Participate in their Care” (n = 81), and “Essential Requirements of Care” (n = 79) being referenced most frequently. Conclusions: These strategies are an effective way to target multiple PCC stakeholders in the health-care system to increase awareness of the PCC Guideline, in order to further impart knowledge of PCC behaviors.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it