Integrating Survivorship Care Into a Radiation Medicine Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction An important but often overlooked component of caring for cancer patients is survivorship care, provided after the completion of active treatment in order to facilitate transition into the next surveillance phase. A survivorship program was developed to deliver a one-on-one education session on healthy lifestyle behaviours and available resources to help patients transition to their post-treatment life. This study reports the outcome of this pilot survivorship care program provided to breast cancer patients completing radiation therapy. Program delivery format and content were evaluated for effectiveness, applicability, and feasibility. Methods and materials Between March 2017 and August 2018, 124 breast cancer patients, nearing completion of their curative intent radiation treatments, participated in this centre-specific survivorship program. The survivorship program entailed a one on one education session delivered to breast cancer patients within the last two weeks of their radiation treatment. Participants were provided a Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, information pamphlet, and evaluation form to provide feedback on materials and presentation. Survivorship education sessions were delivered by study staff or staff scheduled in the Pre-Radiotherapy Patient Assessment role. Follow-up phone calls were conducted post-session delivery to determine the ongoing applicability of survivorship material. Staff was also given an evaluation form upon completion of the trial to measure the session feasibility. Results Of the 124 participants in the study, 69 (56%) provided feedback. Results showed that 98% of participants felt the information provided either confirmed what they were already doing (44%) or encouraged them to consider a lifestyle change (54%). Additionally, 70% reported feeling more confident after completing the session. Staff survey results reported that 87.5% agreed or strongly agreed that these sessions were beneficial and valuable to patients Conclusions Delivering one-on-one education sessions to individual participants focusing on healthy lifestyle measures garnered a positive response from participants, increasing their confidence and knowledge for making lifestyle changes. While staff survey results pointed strongly in favour of continuing with the survivorship sessions, it was shown that the methods of delivery trialed in this study were not feasible to be implemented on a larger scale. With some workflow modification, implementing a survivorship care program in our cancer centre is a possible and important aspect of a patient's treatment journey.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".