MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400508685 · doi:10.1186/s12885-024-12585-z

The black box of the relationship between breast cancer patients and accompanying patients: the accompanied patients’ point of view

2024· article· en· W4400508685 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Marie‐Pascale Pomey, Monica Nelea, Cécile Vialaron, Louise Normandin, Marie‐Andrée Côté, Mado Desforges, Pénélope Pomey‐Carpentier, Nesrine Adjtoutah, Israël Fortin, Isabelle Ganache, Catherine Régis, Zeev Rosberger, Danielle Charpentier, Lynda Bélanger, Michel Dorval, Djahanchah Philip Ghadiri, Mélanie Lavoie‐Tremblay, Antoine Boivin, Jean‐François Pelletier, Nicolás Fernández, A. Danino, Michèle de Guise

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Cancer · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsInstitut universitaire en santé mentale de MontréalCanadian Patient Safety InstituteInstitut Universitaire en Santé Mentale de QuébecHEC MontréalJewish General HospitalCentre Intégré de Santé et Services Sociaux de Chaudière-AppalacheUniversité LavalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalMcGill University Health CentreMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalInstitut National d'Excellence en Santé et en Services SociauxHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontSanté MontérégieCentre de réadaptation Lethbridge-Layton-Mackay
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéUniversité de MontréalMinistère de la Santé et des Services sociauxMinistère de la SantéCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchFondation du cancer du sein du Québec
KeywordsThematic analysisMedicineBreast cancerAnxietyQualitative researchFamily medicineEmotional supportModalitiesPerceptionQuality of life (healthcare)Social supportNursingPsychologyCancerInternal medicinePsychotherapistPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The PAROLE-Onco program was introduced in the province of Quebec, Canada in 2019. It integrates accompanying patients (APs), i.e., people who have been affected by cancer, into the clinical team as full members. These APs use their experiential knowledge with people undergoing treatment and with clinical teams. The aim of this paper is to evaluate, within the framework of two university medical centers, the perceptions of breast cancer patients who receive support from APs, particularly in terms of their active involvement in their care trajectory. METHODS: A qualitative study based on semi-structured interviews with accompanied patients was performed. Fourteen individual interviews were conducted between July and September 2021 with women presenting different profiles in terms of age, education, professional status, type of treatment, family situation, and clinical background. The data were analyzed using thematic analysis, focusing on patients' perceptions of APs' contributions and suggested improvements for accessing AP support. RESULTS: Three themes emerged from the semi-structured interviews: communication modalities used to connect patients with their APs, the characteristics of the support provided by APs, and the perceived effects of this support on the patients. Patients expressed a preference for telephone communication, highlighting its convenience and accessibility. The support provided by APs included emotional and informational support, neutrality, and adaptability. This relationship improved patient communication, reduced anxiety, helped regain control, and enhanced overall quality of life. The results emphasized the added value of APs in complementing the support offered by healthcare professionals. Patients noted the critical role of APs in helping them navigate the healthcare system, better understand their treatment processes, and manage their emotions. The ability of APs to provide practical advice and emotional reassurance was particularly valued. Overall, the findings underscored the significant impact of AP support on patients' experiences and highlighted areas for enhancing this service. CONCLUSION: This study highlights, during the care trajectory of people affected by breast cancer, APs' contribution to patients' emotional well-being because they improve, in particular, the management of emotions and communication with health professionals.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC CancerSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207