MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2892687940 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2018.00443

Symptom Burden and Palliative Referral Disparities in an Ambulatory South Texas Cancer Center

2018· article· en· W2892687940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sherri Rauenzahn, Laura Tenner, Susanne Schmidt, Ifeoma Aduba, Jessica Treviño Jones, Nazneen Ali, Savitri Singh‐Carlson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Center for Research ResourcesFoundation for the National Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicinePalliative careReferralEthnic groupFamily medicineCancerAmbulatoryDemographicsInternal medicineNursingDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology’s recommendation for “dedicated palliative care services, early in the disease course, concurrent with active treatment” for cancer patients is a challenge for cancer centers to accommodate. Despite demonstrated benefits of concurrent care, disparities among socioeconomic and ethnic groups in access to supportive care services have been described. The aim of this project was to evaluate: a) how insurance coverage and ethnicity impact patient symptom burden and, b) how those factors influence palliative access for patients at a South Texas NCI-designated cancer center. Methods: During a 5-month retrospective period, 604 patients from five ambulatory oncology clinics completed the 10 question Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) surveys during their clinic visit. Patient demographics, ESAS scores, palliative referral decisions, and time to palliative encounters were collected. We compared symptom burden and time to consult based on ethnicity and insurance status (insured = Group A; under-insured and safety net = Group B). Results: The mean ESAS score for all patients at the initial visit was 19.9 (SD=18.1). Safety net patients were significantly more likely to be Hispanic, younger in age, and have an underlying GI malignancy in comparison to insured patients; however, the symptom severity was similar between groups with over 40% of individuals reporting at least one severe symptom. Twenty-one referrals were made to palliative care. On average, Group B had 33.3 days longer wait times until their first potential visit (p<0.01) when compared to Group A. Time to actual visit was on average 57.6 days longer for patients in Group B compared to patients in Group A (p=0.01), averaging at 73.8 days for safety net patients. Conclusions: This project highlights the high symptom burden of oncology patients and disparities in access to services based on insurance coverage. This investigation revealed a 4-fold increase in the time to the first scheduled palliative care visit based on whether patients were insured versus under-insured. While this study is limited by a small sample size, data suggest that under-insured oncology patients may have significant barriers to palliative care services, which may influence their cancer care quality.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.325 · 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

Citations17
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Oncology→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→