Holistic Person-Centered Care in Radiotherapy: Protocol for a Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several types of health care professionals are responsible for the care of patients with cancer throughout their engagement with the health care system. One such type is the radiotherapist. The radiotherapist not only administers treatment but is also directly involved with the patient during treatment. Despite this direct contact with the patient, the narrative tends to focus more on technical tasks than the actual patient. This task-focused interaction is often due to the highly sophisticated equipment and complex radiotherapy treatment processes involved. This often results in not meeting the psychosocial needs of the patient, and patients have acknowledged noncompliance and delayed treatment as a result. OBJECTIVE: The scoping review aims to explore, chart, and map the available literature on holistic person-centered care in radiotherapy and to identify and present key concepts, definitions, methodologies, knowledge gaps, and evidence related to holistic person-centered care in radiotherapy. METHODS: This protocol was developed using previously described methodological frameworks for scoping studies. The review will include both peer-reviewed and gray literature regarding holistic, person-centered care in radiotherapy. A comprehensive search strategy has been developed for MEDLINE (Ovid), which will be translated into the other included databases: Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Elsevier), Cochrane Library, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Gray literature searching will include Google (Google Books and Google Scholar), ProQuest, the WorldWideScience website, the OpenGrey website, and various university dissertation and thesis repositories. The title and abstract screening, full-text review, and relevant data extraction will be performed independently by all 3 reviewers using the Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation) software, which will also be used to guide the resolution of conflicts. Sources selected will be imported into ATLAS.ti (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH) for analysis, which will consist of content analysis, narrative analysis, and descriptive synthesis. Results will be presented using narrative, diagrammatic, and tabular formats. RESULTS: The review is expected to identify research gaps that will inform current and future holistic, person-centered care in radiotherapy. The review commenced in November 2023, and the formal literature search was completed by the end of February 2024. Final results are expected to be published in a peer-reviewed journal by 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this review are expected to provide a wide variety of strategies aimed at providing holistic, person-centered care in radiotherapy, as well as to identify some gaps in the literature. These findings will be used to inform future studies aimed at designing, developing, evaluating, and implementing strategies toward improved holistic, person-centered care in radiotherapy. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/51338.
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 | 0.114 | 0.107 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.087 | 0.016 |
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".