MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389891572 · doi:10.1177/23821205231219394

Importance of Incorporating the Perspectives of People with Cancer into Oncology Education: A Scoping Review

2023· review· en· W4389891572 on OpenAlexafffund
Hanna Dutt, Arleigh Dean, R Kamal, Alison L. Allan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Education and Curricular Development · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
FundersLondon Health Sciences Foundation
KeywordsModalitiesCurriculumMedical educationRelevance (law)MedicineMEDLINEOncologyNarrativeExperiential learningContinuing medical educationPsychologyContinuing educationPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: With the shift towards person-centered care (PCC) in oncology, there is a need for parallel evolution of oncology education programs to prepare the next generation of health professionals to deliver effective PCC. These programs should be designed utilizing perspectives from individuals who have lived experience with cancer to ensure that changes to education curricula translate to improved PCC in the clinic. Objectives: Our goal was to identify existing literature describing such programs as well as identify gaps for further development. Methods: Keywords were agreed upon and searched across Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, ERIC, Google Scholar, and MedEdPORTAL databases. Duplicates were removed, unique articles were screened for relevance by title and abstract, and a full text review of each article was completed for validation. Included articles describe methods for involving people with cancer in developing and/or delivering oncology-focused education programs. Results: In total, 15 articles describing 12 unique oncology education programs from 7 different countries were identified, reviewed, and summarized. These programs involved learners undertaking undergraduate medical education, postgraduate medical education, continuing medical education, or training as nurses or radiation therapists. Current literature indicates that classroom-based sessions, experiential or simulated learning modalities, and/or asynchronous online modules can all feasibly be created with the integration of perspectives/narratives of people with cancer. Furthermore, involving people with cancer directly in the design and/or delivery of these education programs may contribute to improved patient experiences. Conclusions: Including the perspectives of people with cancer directly in oncology curriculum development and delivery can improve established pedagogical approaches and enhance learner confidence and competency in delivering PCC. We provide recommendations for stepwise implementation of patient perspectives into oncology education, with the hope that future programs will better prepare and motivate learners to provide PCC aimed at improving cancer care, quality of life, and disease outcomes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.484
Teacher spread0.453 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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 venueJournal of Medical Education and Curricular DevelopmentSame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207