How have Patients' Experiences of Cancer Care Been Linked to Survival? A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient experience of care remains an important indicator of health care quality. Although studies show care experiences are associated with health outcomes for some conditions, the situation for cancer is unclear. New datasets on cancer patients in the US, Canada, and UK linking information on experiences and survival may enable an exploration of any association. This review aimed to identify studies linking any aspect of cancer patients’ experiences to their survival, to inform future analyses. We performed a systematic review using Medline database from January 1998 until March 2018. The settings included outpatient oncology clinics, primary care, hospitals, and cancer centres. The participants included adult patients from different demographic groups. 16 Studies (ten observational, two clinical trials, two qualitative, and two consecutive case series) describing a wide range of settings, populations and methods met our inclusion criteria. Patients’ experiences were mostly linked to survival in quantitative studies. Satisfaction with care and psychosocial support were the aspects of experience associated with survival. Although positive associations between experience and survival were more common, negative and lack of association findings were also reported. Overall, there was no agreement on the strength, direction of the association, and the type of measurements to use. In conclusion, a wide range of studies suggest a relationship may exist between patients’ experiences of cancer care and their survival. However, this relationship is complex and methodological challenging to study. Future research should carefully consider different aspects of patient experience and care and the way in which they may affect cancer survival.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".