Patient‐reported experiences and satisfaction with head and neck surgery outreach clinics in regional New South Wales, Australia: A cross‐sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE: Head and neck surgery services are increasingly being centralised in Australia. Outreach models can overcome burdens of travel that patients in regional and rural areas experience when attending routine appointments, by providing services closer to home. AIM: To explore patient-reported experiences and satisfaction with regional outreach services for head and neck surgery in Australia. METHODS: Patients who attended two regional outreach clinics in New South Wales (NSW), Australia, were surveyed over a 6-month period. Patients completed the Outpatient Cancer Clinics Survey (2020 version) that explored perceptions and experiences of the clinic. Patients with cancer were asked to complete the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy scale. Descriptive statistics and analysis of data was performed, and results were compared to the NSW statewide Outpatient Cancer Clinics Survey (2020). Content analysis of free text responses was performed. RESULTS: Some 128 patients responded (56% response rate; mean age 67.2 years, 46.1% female). Compared to the 2020 NSW survey, a higher proportion of patients in our cohort responded positively to 14 of the 26 questions, with the greatest differences observed for questions regarding waiting area comfort (+12.1%, p = 0.008), being informed about different treatment options (+9.5%, p = 0.04), and issues relating to parking (+9.5%, p = 0.03). A lower proportion of our sample responded positively to the question about whether health professionals knew enough about their medical history (-19.3%, p < 0.001). Respondents appreciated having a local clinic that helped them avoid travel to major cities and associated expenses and highlighted benefits of expert consultation and timeliness of investigations. However, cost of appointments and level of reimbursements remain barriers for some patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients had a high level of satisfaction with regional outreach clinics for head and neck surgery across most domains, indicating patients highly value this service.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".