Perceived levels of collaboration between cancer patients and their providers during radiation therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study described the patterns within collaborative relationships between patients and health care professionals during radiation therapy (RT). A one-time survey was administered to cancer patients (N=130) receiving RT at one Ontario cancer centre. The key study variables were collaboration between patients and health care providers and participants' well-being. Participants reported higher levels of collaboration with nurses, radiation oncologists, and radiation therapists than with dietitians, social workers and spiritual support personnel [F(5, 760) = 430.42, p < .001]. Participants with more symptom distress collaborated more with some health care professionals than those with less distress, but this was only true for collaboration with social workers (p < .05) and dietitians (p < .05). We postulated that participants did not require services from dietitians and social workers when symptom burden was low. Future directions regarding integration of patient-centred measures (e.g., self-management education) into interprofessional models for cancer care are discussed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".