Validating the Effectiveness of the Patient-Centered Cancer Care Framework by Assessing the Impact of Work System Factors on Patient-Centered Care and Quality of Care: Interview Study With Newly Diagnosed Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer who have recently been diagnosed have distinct requirements compared to cancer survivors. It is crucial to take into account their unique needs to ensure that they make informed decisions and are receptive to the care provided. OBJECTIVE: This study suggested a framework titled Effectiveness of Patient-Centered Cancer Care that considers the needs of newly diagnosed patients with cancer and related work system factors. This study investigated how work system factors influence the perceptions of patient-centered care, quality of care, and associated outcomes among newly diagnosed patients with cancer. Patient-centered care is defined in terms of workload and communication considerations, whereas the quality of care is assessed through indicators such as trust in physicians, satisfaction with care, and perceptions of technology. METHODS: This study used qualitative data collected through interviews with newly diagnosed patients with cancer (N=20) right after their first visits with their physicians. Thematic analysis was conducted to validate the 5 hypotheses of the framework, mapping the interactions among quality of care, patient-centered care, and work system factors. RESULTS: We found that workload and patient-centered communication impact the quality of care and that the work system elements impact the patient-centeredness (workload and communication) and the quality of care (trust in physicians, satisfaction with care, and perception of technology use). CONCLUSIONS: Qualitatively validating the proposed Effectiveness of Patient-Centered Cancer Care framework, this study demonstrated its efficacy in elucidating the interplay of various factors. The framework holds promise for informing interventions geared toward enhancing patients' experiences during their initial visits after diagnosis. There is a pressing need for heightened attention to the organizational design, patient processes, and collaborative efforts among diverse stakeholders and providers to optimize the overall patient experience.
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 | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".