MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4387169164 · doi:10.3390/curroncol30100644

In-Clinic versus Hybrid Cancer Rehabilitation Service Delivery during the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Outcome Comparison Study

2023· article· en· W4387169164 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kelley C. Wood, Smith Giri, Tiffany Kendig, Mackenzi Pergolotti

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSanofi
KeywordsMedicineTelehealthRehabilitationPandemicQuality of life (healthcare)Service delivery frameworkTelemedicineLogistic regressionObservational studyPhysical therapyHealth careFamily medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Service (business)NursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diminished health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is common among cancer survivors but often amendable to rehabilitation. However, few access real-world rehabilitation services. Hybrid delivery modes (using a combination of in-clinic and synchronous telehealth visits) became popular during the COVID-19 pandemic and offer a promising solution to improve access beyond the pandemic. However, it is unclear if hybrid delivery has the same impact on patient-reported outcomes and experiences as standard, in-clinic-only delivery. To fill this gap, we performed a retrospective, observational, comparative outcomes study of real-world electronic medical record (EMR) data collected by a national outpatient rehabilitation provider in 2020–2021. Of the cases meeting the inclusion criteria (N = 2611), 60 were seen to via hybrid delivery. The outcomes evaluated pre and post-rehabilitation included PROMIS® global physical health (GPH), global mental health (GMH), physical function (PF), and the ability to participate in social roles and activities (SRA). The patient experience outcomes included the Net Promoter Survey (NPS®) and the Select Medical Patient-Reported Experience Measure (SM-PREM). A linear and logistic regression was used to examine the between-group differences in the PROMIS and SM-PREM scores while controlling for covariates. The hybrid and in-clinic-only cases improved similarly in all PROMIS outcomes (all p < 0.05). The association between the delivery mode and the likelihood of achieving the minimal important change in the PROMIS outcomes was non-significant (all p > 0.05). No between-group differences were observed in the NPS or SM-PREM scores (all p > 0.05). Although more research is needed, this real-world evidence suggests that hybrid rehabilitation care may be equally beneficial for and acceptable to cancer survivors and supports calls to expand access to and reimbursement for telerehabilitation.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.355
GPT teacher head0.540
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Oncology→Same topicCancer survivorship and care→French-language works237,207→