Care transitions among oncological patients: from hospital to community
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the transition of care from the perspective of cancer patients, in a Southern Brazil hospital, correlating perspectives with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. METHOD: Cross-sectional study using the Care Transitions Measure (CTM) with cancer patients undergoing clinical or surgical treatment following hospital discharge. Data collection was completed by telephone, between June and September 2019. Data analysis was performed using descriptive and inferential statistics. RESULTS: The average CTM score was 74.1, which was considered satisfactory. The CTM factors: understanding about medications (83.3) and preparation for self-management (77.7) were deemed satisfactory; while: secured preferences (69.4) and care plan (66.1) were unsatisfactory for an effective and safe care transition. No statistically significant difference was found between sociodemographic variables and the CTM. Among the clinical variables, primary cancer and the secured preferences factor showed a significant difference (p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: The transition from hospital care to the community was considered satisfactory in the overall assessment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it