From foundation to inspiration: implementing screening for distress (6th Vital Sign) for optimal cancer care—international leadership perspectives on program development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The principles of whole patient care in cancer and the evidence regarding the benefits of screening for distress provide the impetus for innovation in implementation of psychosocial oncology programs. This includes the creation of new ways of integrating psychosocial assessment in patient reported outcomes and linking this to models of interdisciplinary collaborative care. Screening for distress can itself promote engagement of patients and families/carers in their care. To achieve this, recognition of the broader interpersonal and social context of cancer and related concerns for patients in such screening practices is encouraged. This article will lay the foundation for the successful implementation of clinical distress screening programs and then outline strategies that have been demonstrated to be successful in program quality, growth, and resource preservation. A brief overview of historical foundations of screening for distress is provided along with presentation of examples of innovative practice, including evidence of broader benefits of such screening and future challenges to effective program development, along with including recommendations for implementation within cancer care services.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".