Assessment of Patient Satisfaction Among Cancer Patients Undergoing Radiotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The patient-provider relationship is a key driver of patient satisfaction as it relates to overall healthcare experience. We surveyed patients undergoing radiation therapy to determine what they consider to be the most valued qualities in their interactions with the healthcare team. An ethics-approved 35-item patient satisfaction survey was developed in-house to gain insights on patients' perception of their relationship with the healthcare team throughout their cancer journey. There were 199 completed survey, median age 68 years, 54% women and 45% men. Almost all (95%) "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that their physicians had been sensitive and compassionate. Over 90% felt that they received adequate explanations about their treatment, and had their questions answered. The vast majority (93%) felt included in the decision-making process. Patients reported the 5 most highly rated qualities among their healthcare providers (HCPs) as knowledge, kindness, honesty, good communication, and a cheerful attitude. Overall satisfaction was high but areas for improvement were identified including being offered future appointments for further discussion, more information about clinical trials, other treatments, and community resources. Patients noted their HCPs tended to focus on the physical and emotional needs of patients, but spiritual and cultural needs were rarely addressed. Patients receiving radiotherapy reported high rates of satisfaction across many aspects of their care. These findings also reinforce the different aspects of holistic care that can be improved, and serve as a reminder to clinicians that patients perceive their role as more than just that of a medical expert.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".