Support by peers in the clinical team in oncology: Perception of the contribution of patient advisors to improve the patient experience.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
57 Background: Since 2018, three establishments in Quebec have introduced patient advisors (PA) in their healthcare team in order to improve cancer patients’ experience. These PA, who have had a cancer experience, meet patients undergoing radiotherapy treatments or in oncogenetics for breast cancer on the healthcare site. They conduct consultations to complete the offer of services by bringing emotional, informational, and educational support. Methods: A longitudinal study of multiple cases was completed from January to June 2020. After each accompaniment, the PA filled out a logbook to document the main themes covered and the accompanied patient fill out a survey to evaluate their experience one week after the intervention. A qualitative analysis of the logbook content and descriptive statistics were conducted. The REDCAP platform was used for monitoring the process of data collection and to administer the surveys online. Results: In total, 67 patients were accompanied by 4 PA. 71 logbooks were completed by the PA. The logbooks show that 70.3% of accompaniments took place right before radiotherapy and 63.6% following the results of the genetic test in oncogenetics. 50% of meetings took place in person in the establishment (in a space dedicated to the PA or not) and 45.8% were by phone. The meetings lasted approximately 37 minutes (min: 15 minutes and max: 90 minutes). The majority only met once (93.1 %). The most common themes discussed are: the role of the PA (94.1%), returning to day life (57.6%) and dealing with stress and anxiety (52.2%). 96% of PA felt that they did not encounter any difficulties during the accompaniment. For the accompanied women, the partnership was most beneficial for their experience with the illness (sharing experiences of side-effects, on the impact of the illness on every day life, with their social circle). 79% of patients found that the accompaniment met their needs. 90% of patients estimate that these meetings are complimentary to the healthcare professionals’ interventions. Finally, 89.5% of accompanied patients think that it would be very important to develop these types of meetings on a larger scale. Concerning the adaptation of spaces for the meetings, 26.3% are very satisfied and 26.3% are rather satisfied (probably an area for improvement). Conclusions: Overall, the partnerships seem to answer the needs of the accompanied patients and the PA can share their experience inside the clinical team.
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 | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".