MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4294607497 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2022.946281

Cancer knowledge and health-consciousness in childhood cancer survivors following transition into adult care—results from the ACCS project

2022· article· en· W4294607497 on OpenAlexaff
Maria Otth, Sibylle Denzler, Tamara Diesch, Katrin Scheinemann

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSwiss Cancer Research Foundation
KeywordsChildhood cancerCancerMedicineCancer survivorTransition (genetics)ConsciousnessSurvivorship curveCancer survivorshipHealth careGerontologyPsychologyOncologyFamily medicinePsychiatryInternal medicineNeuroscienceBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Knowledge on chronic medical conditions in childhood cancer survivors (CCSs) is constantly growing and underlines that long-term follow-up (LTFU) care is often mandatory, also in adulthood. However, many CCSs discontinue follow-up care after transition to adult care. One reason might be that the current transition practices do not meet the needs of adolescent and young adult CCSs. We therefore aim to evaluate different transition models for Swiss CCSs by assessing their cancer knowledge, cancer worries, self-management skills, and expectations for LTFU care, following transition in two different hospital-based models. Methods: Within the Aftercare of Childhood Cancer Survivors (ACCS) study, we performed a questionnaire-based survey with a cross-sectional and longitudinal part. We included 5-year CCSs aged >16 years at recruitment who were transitioned to adult care in two hospitals between 2014 and 2021. Here, we report the results of the cross-sectional part. We compared the survivors' cancer knowledge with medical record data and assessed cancer worries (6 questions), self-management skills (15 questions), and expectations (12 questions) by validated scales. We used descriptive statistics, chi-squared test, and t-tests to describe the results. Results: We analyzed 57 CCSs (response rate 44%), 60% of those were female, had a median age of 9 years at diagnosis and 23 years at the questionnaire. Most CCSs recalled their diagnosis (95%) and exposure to treatment modalities (98%) correctly. CCSs worried the most about potential late effects (47%) and issues with having children in the future (44%). At least 75% of CCSs agreed to 12 of the 15 self-management questions, indicating high self-management skills. The top three expectations included that physicians know the survivors' cancer history, that visits start on time, and that physicians can always be called in case of questions. Conclusion: CCSs receiving hospital-based LTFU care have good cancer knowledge and high self-management skills. The identified worries and expectations will help to improve the LTFU care of CCSs who transition to adult care, to further inform and educate survivors and healthcare professionals about and might be relevant for other countries with a similar healthcare system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.334 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207