MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Young adult cancer survivors' (CS) follow-up care expectations of their primary care providers (PCPs) and oncologists.

2013· article· en· W3011913566 on OpenAlexaff
Divjot S. Kumar, Ali Moghaddamjou, Winson Y. Cheung

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSurvivorship curveFamily medicineCancerPrimary careCancer survivorshipDemographicsBreast cancerYoung adultCLARITYGerontologyGynecologyInternal medicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

9598 Background: The delivery of cancer survivorship care can be complicated by a lack of clarity surrounding physician roles during follow-up. This can be particularly challenging for young adult CS who face unique needs. Our aim was to characterize young CS’ follow-up care expectations of their PCPs and oncologists. Methods: A self-administered survey was mailed to all CS diagnosed with cancer from 2005 to 2009, aged 20 to 39 years at the time of diagnosis, evaluated at any 1 of 5 regional cancer centers in British Columbia, and lived beyond 2 years. The questionnaire focused on demographics, prior treatment, and CS attitudes regarding physician responsibilities during survivorship, specifically their views about their PCPs’ and oncologists’ roles. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used to summarize these expectations and to determine if they differed based on physician type. Results: A total of 426 patients were included (response rate 59%): current median age was 40 years (range 24-45) and 301 (71%) were women. Common tumor sites were breast (48%), testicular (27%), and gynecological (18%). Most patients (63 and 65%, respectively) expected PCPs to be responsible for following their most recent cancer and screening for future cancers. Nearly all (85 and 93%, respectively) indicated that PCPs should also provide preventive care and manage their co-morbidities. Conversely, a significant proportion (65%) felt that oncologists should remain responsible for addressing side effects of cancer treatments throughout survivorship. In terms of fertility discussions, half of patients viewed this as a role for oncologists whereas the remainder perceived this to be more suitable for PCPs. Interestingly, neither PCPs nor oncologists were seen to have any significant role in addressing social reintegration, interpersonal relationships, or sexual function, with <30% of respondents expecting these to be discussed by either physician. Conclusions: Young adult CS expect PCPs to be responsible for most aspects of their ongoing care. More clarity regarding physician roles is required with respect to specific survivorship issues, such as fertility, sexual function and psychosocial health.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.349 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207