MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224983034 · doi:10.35680/2372-0247.1595

Patient reported experience in a radiation oncology department

2022· article· en· W4224983034 on OpenAlexaff
Demetra Yannitsos, Petra Grendarova, Abdulla Al‐Rashdan, Linda R. Watson, Wendy Smith, F. Lochray, Jackson Wu, Lisa Barbera

Bibliographic record

VenuePatient Experience Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPatient experienceMedicineFeelingRadiation oncologyFamily medicineHealth careNursingRadiation therapyInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding patient experience is essential to providing high quality, person-centered care. A real-time baseline cross-sectional study was completed to identify gaps in patient experience that can be targeted for quality improvement (QI). This study is part of PROSE (Person-centered Radiation Oncology Service Enhancement), a QI initiative developed to improve patient experience at a tertiary cancer centre Radiation Oncology (RO) Department. Data was collected using the Your Voice Matters (YVM) questionnaire. The YVM captures information on the patient’s last visit, and questions are organized based on dimensions of person-centered care. Recruitment occurred between May and August 2019 in the radiation department. Consecutive patients during the study period were approached to complete the YVM either in reference to their initial consultation or previous treatment appointment. Percent positive scores were calculated for quantitative data and a content analysis was completed for open-text data. Of 512 patients approached, a total of 400 patients participated across tumors groups. Overall, patients highly endorsed positive experiences with feeling respected by their healthcare provider. Contacting the clinic, emotional support and wait times were rated as the least positive components of experience across appointment types and tumors groups. The Lung tumour group demonstrated worse experiences across all domains during treatments compared to all other tumour groups. Gaps and differences in patient experience were demonstrated across appointment types and tumour groups. This study provides direction to effectively develop and implement QI work aimed at improving patient experience. Experience Framework This article is associated with the Policy & Measurement lens of The Beryl Institute Experience Framework. (https://www.theberylinstitute.org/ExperienceFramework). Access other PXJ articles related to this lens. Access other resources related to this lens.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.239
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePatient Experience JournalSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207