Evolving best practice for take-home cancer drugs in Ontario.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
246 Background: Take-home cancer drugs (THCD) have become a standard treatment for many cancers and present opportunities and challenges for patients, providers and administrators. Ontario’s system has been described as two-tiered, with intravenous cancer drugs (IVCD) viewed as more comprehensive, organized, safer, and more patient-centred. Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) is the Ontario government’s principal cancer advisor. In April 2017, CCO established an Oncology Pharmacy Task Force to develop consensus-based recommendations on best practices for THCD to ensure that all patients are receiving consistent high-quality care regardless of the method of delivery of treatment. Methods: The Task Force included 34 members with representation from patient advocacy groups, pharmacy and pharmacist associations, regulatory and standard setting organizations, and subject matter experts. Standards, guidelines and recommendations from leading authorities were extracted by CCO’s Evidence Search and Review Service and synthesized by a core working group to develop 29 statements. The consensus process included a three-step modified Delphi method with two electronic surveys and a face-to-face meeting. Seventy percent agreement was required to include a recommendation. Thereafter, an extensive review process was conducted with relevant CCO programs and committees as well as subject matter experts, stakeholders and standard setting bodies at the local-regional and national levels. Results: Sixteen consensus-based recommendations were developed: training and education for providers (2); drug access (1); prescribing (4); patient, family/caregiver education (3); communication (1); dispensing (3); monitoring for adherence, identification and management of symptoms/adverse effect (1); and incident reporting (1) . This guidance will have most relevance for patients receiving THCD that require routine monitoring and for clinicians involved in delivering systemic treatment, and associated medications. Conclusions: Through the rigorous use of the Delphi technique, the Task Force developed a robust set of recommendations for THCD delivery in Ontario. Further work will be required to understand implementation enablers and barriers
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 | 0.031 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".