MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308368676 · doi:10.1016/j.jtct.2022.10.028

Primary Preventive Care of Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation Survivors: Time to Educate and Empower Recipients and Providers

2022· article· en· W4308368676 on OpenAlexafffund
Jill Fulcher, Alexandre P. Blanchard, Christopher Bredeson, Carl van Walraven

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation and Cellular Therapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicineSurvivorship curveAttendanceTransplantationPopulationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationPsychological interventionHematopoietic cellDiseasePrimary care physicianIntensive care medicineFamily medicineStem cellInternal medicinePrimary careNursingHaematopoiesisEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increasing use of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) and improvements in recipient outcomes have led to a steady increase in the number of allogeneic HCT survivors. In addition to complications specific to the transplantation process, HCT recipients are at increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) and subsequent neoplasm (SN). Strict surveillance of risk factors for CVD and cancer in the general population is recommended as an essential component of long-term follow-up (LTFU) care of HCT survivors, but implementation of this has been suboptimal. Various models for improving the provision of survivorship care have been proposed, including a hybrid/combined care approach wherein the HCT provider manages transplantation-specific complications and the primary care physician (PCP) provides general medical care, including surveillance and aggressive management of CVD risk factors and screening for SN. This model also offers a practical approach to LTFU care for HCT survivors who live at a distance from the HCT center, which is a reality for many recipients of HCT at The Ottawa Hospital (TOH). As the success of such a hybrid approach to survivorship care depends on the engagement of HCT recipients with their PCP and compliance with recommended general population surveillance, the aim of the present study was to assess the rates of PCP attendance and adherence to recommended preventive medicine interventions in the years immediately before and after HCT. We hypothesized that rates would be suboptimal and planned to use these results as a baseline for an educational initiative aimed at increasing awareness of HCT recipients and their PCPs about embracing preventive survivorship care. This was a single-center cohort study of allogeneic HCT recipients who underwent transplantation at TOH with linkage to population-based health administrative data. Published clinical practice guidelines were used to define recommended screening for CVD risk factors and cancer. The rates of annual PCP visits and utilization of recommended preventive care interventions in the 5 years before and after HCT were calculated for all eligible patients. Between 2014 and 2020, 409 patients with provincial health care coverage underwent allogeneic HCT at TOH. The median patient age was 51 years (range, 15 to 73 years), with a male predominance (60.9%). Approximately one-quarter of recipients did not attend a PCP visit in the 5 years before and after transplantation, and this proportion increased to one- third in the fifth year post-HCT. Among those recipients who were eligible, only 20% to 25% underwent recommended screening for dyslipidemia and diabetes. Cancer screening rates were also low, at 16% to 18% for cervical cancer, 18% to 22% for colon cancer, and 30% to 31% for breast cancer. These results highlight the need to increase awareness of HCT recipients and their PCPs about the risk of developing CVD and SN post-transplantation and to emphasize the potential to mitigate this risk by adhering to recommendations for surveillance to enable prompt intervention. Patient education should incorporate this information and empower HCT survivors to actively engage in their follow-up care and optimize their long-term outcomes.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0090.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.003

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueTransplantation and Cellular TherapySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207