MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284961780 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0270797

Thinking globally to improve care locally: A Delphi study protocol to achieve international clinical consensus on best-practice end-of-life communication with adolescents and young adults with cancer

2022· article· en· W4284961780 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersNational Institutes of HealthConquer Cancer FoundationKids Cancer AllianceCanTeenSeattle Children's Research InstituteMedical Research CouncilChildren’s Hospital of Wisconsin Research InstituteCureSearch for Children's CancerAmerican Society of Clinical OncologyTeenage Cancer TrustCancer Council NSWNational Health and Medical Research CouncilNational Palliative Care Research CenterAmerican Cancer Society
KeywordsYoung adultDelphi methodBest practiceMedicineEnd-of-life careProtocol (science)Multidisciplinary approachHealth careFamily medicinePsychologyGerontologyMedical educationNursingPalliative careAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the sizeable subset of adolescents and young adults whose cancer is incurable, developmentally appropriate end-of-life discussions are critical. Standards of care for adolescent and young adult end-of-life communication have been established, however, many health-professionals do not feel confident leading these conversations, leaving gaps in the implementation of best-practice end-of-life communication. We present a protocol for a Delphi study informing the development and implementation of clinician training to strengthen health-professionals' capacity in end-of-life conversations. Our approach will inform training to address barriers to end-of-life communication with adolescents and young adults across Westernized Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Global Accord countries. The Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Global Accord team involves 26 investigators from Australia, New Zealand, the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom. Twenty-four consumers, including adolescents and young adults with cancer history and carers, informed study design. We describe methodology for a modified Delphi questionnaire. The questionnaire aims to determine optimal timing for end-of-life communication with adolescents and young adults, practice-related content needed in clinician training for end-of-life communication with adolescents and young adults, and desireability of evidence-based training models. Round 1 involves an expert panel of investigators identifying appropriate questionnaire items. Rounds 2 and 3 involve questionnaires of international multidisciplinary health-professionals, followed by further input by adolescents and young adults. A second stage of research will design health-professional training to support best-practice end-of-life communication. The outcomes of this iterative and participatory research will directly inform the implementation of best-practice end-of-life communication across Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Global Accord countries. Barriers and training preferences identified will directly contribute to developing clinician-training resources. Our results will provide a framework to support further investigating end-of-life communication with adolescents and young adults across diverse countries. Our experiences also highlight effective methodology in undertaking highly collaborative global research.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.908

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.324 · 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