MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4318773554 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-2501255/v1

Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) versus usual care for patients with advanced cancer: A mixed methods study

2023· preprint· en· W4318773554 on OpenAlexafffund
Camilla Zimmermann, Ashley Pope, Breffni Hannon, Philippe L. Bédard, Gary Rodin, Neesha C. Dhani, Madeline Li, Leonie Herx, Monika K. Krzyzanowska, Doris Howell, Jennifer J. Knox, Natasha B. Leighl, Srikala Srid, Amit M. Oza, Stéphanie Lheureux, Christopher M. Booth, Geoffrey Liu, Jacqueline Alcalde Castro, Nadia Swami, Rachel Sue-A-Quan, Anne Rydall, Lisa W. Le

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsKingston General HospitalQueen's UniversityUniversity Health Network
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Foundation
KeywordsMedicineReferralPalliative careRandomized controlled trialQuality of life (healthcare)Family medicineInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose: Although early palliative care is recommended, resource limitations prevent its routine implementation. We report on the preliminary findings of a mixed methods study involving a randomized controlled trial (RCT) of Symptom screening with Targeted Early Palliative care (STEP) and qualitative interviews. Methods: Adults with advanced solid tumors and an oncologist-estimated prognosis of 6-36 months were randomized to STEP or symptom screening alone. STEP involved symptom screening at each outpatient oncology visit; moderate to severe scores triggered an email to a palliative care nurse, who offered referral to in-person outpatient palliative care. Patient-reported outcomes of quality of life (FACT-G7), depression (PHQ-9), symptom control (ESAS-r-CS), and satisfaction with care (FAMCARE P-16) were measured at baseline and 2, 4, and 6 months. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a subset of participants. Results: From Aug/2019 to Mar/2020 (trial halted due to COVID-19 pandemic), 69 participants were randomized to STEP (n=33) or usual care (n=36). At 6 months, 45% of STEP arm patients and 17% of screening alone participants had received palliative care (p=0.009). Nonsignificant trends for all outcomes favored STEP: difference in change scores for FACT-G7=1.67 (95% CI: -1.43,4.77); ESAS-r-CS=-5.51(-14.29,3.27); FAMCARE P-16=4.10(-0.31,8.51); PHQ-9=-2.41 (-5.02,0.20). Sixteen patients completed qualitative interviews, describing symptom screening as helpful to initiate communication; triggered referral as initially jarring but ultimately beneficial; and referral to palliative care as timely. Conclusion: STEP improves access to palliative care. Despite lack of power, preliminary results are encouraging and qualitative results demonstrate acceptability. Findings will inform an RCT of combined in-person and virtual STEP. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03987906

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.243
GPT teacher head0.563
Teacher spread0.320 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues→French-language works237,207→