MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Association between unmet needs and utilization of emergency services among cancer survivors in Canada.

2022· article· en· W4281706429 on OpenAlexaffabout
Megan Delisle, Amirrtha Srikanthan, Ying Wang, Margaret I. Fitch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCancerLogistic regressionFamily medicineProstate cancerBreast cancerColorectal cancerCancer survivorHealth careGerontologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

12131 Background: In 2016, the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer distributed surveys to over 40,000 cancer survivors to understand their experiences transitioning from primary cancer treatment to follow-up cancer care. Previously reported results of this survey identified that cancer survivors had high rates of unmet physical, emotional and practical needs. This study describes the association between these unmet needs and emergency services (ES) utilization within the first three years after cancer treatment. Methods: 13,319 respondents returned the survey (response rate 33%). Respondents in this study have non-metastatic breast, hematologic, colorectal, melanoma or prostate cancer. The association between self-reported unmet needs and ES utilization was assessed using multivariable logistic regression. High ES utilization was defined as accessing ES more than three times per year during the first three years after active cancer treatment. Results: 8,911 participants are included in this analysis; 80.5% reported at least one unmet practical, physical, and emotional need (n=7169, Table). A total of 3.9% (n=344) reported high ES utilization. Unmet needs were a significant predictor of high ES utilization (OR 1.75 95% CI 1.14-2.68 p=0.01). Other significant predictors of high ES utilization on the multivariable analysis included: not being able to identify a healthcare provider in charge of follow-up cancer care (OR 2.73 95% CI 1.32-5.65 p=0.01), high oncologist utilization (OR 3.08 95% CI 2.28-4.15 p<0.01), high primary care provider utilization (OR 2.3 95% CI 1.76-3.0 p<0.01), having a chronic condition (OR 1.6 95% CI 1.19-2.07 p<0.01), having colorectal cancer (OR 2.12 95% CI 1.31-3.44 p<0.01), being enrolled in a clinical trial (OR 1.54 95% CI 1.11-2.16 p=0.01), and rating follow-up cancer care coordination as fair or poor (OR 1.39 95% CI 1.03-1.86 p=0.03). Conclusions: Unmet needs are associated with high ES utilization in the first three years after cancer treatment. A better understanding of the reasons for this association is required to develop approaches to reduce potentially preventable ES utilization and improve perceived care needs among cancer survivors. [Table: see text]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207