Continuity and coordination of care for childhood cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions: Results from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Continuity and coordination-of-care for childhood cancer survivors with multiple chronic conditions are understudied but critical for appropriate follow-up care. METHODS: From April through June 2022, 800 Childhood Cancer Survivor Study participants with two or more chronic conditions (one or more severe/life-threatening/disabling) were emailed the "Patient Perceived Continuity-of-Care from Multiple Clinicians" survey. The survey asked about survivors' main (takes care of most health care) and coordinating (ensures follow-up) provider, produced three care-coordination summary scores (main provider, across multiple providers, patient-provider partnership), and included six discontinuity indicators (e.g., having to organize own care). Discontinuity (yes/no) was defined as poor care on one or more discontinuity item. Chi-square tests assessed associations between discontinuity and sociodemographics. Modified Poisson regression models estimated prevalence ratios (PRs) for discontinuity risk associated with the specialty and number of years seeing the main and coordinating provider, and PRs associated with better scores on the three care-coordination summary measures. Inverse probability weights adjusted for survey non-participation. RESULTS: A total of 377 (47%) survivors responded (mean age 48 years, 68% female, 89% non-Hispanic White, 78% privately insured, 74% ≥college graduate); 147/373 (39%) reported discontinuity. Younger survivors were more likely to report discontinuity (chi-square p = .02). Seeing the main provider ≤3 years was associated with more prevalent discontinuity (PR; 95%CI) (1.17; 1.02-1.34 vs ≥ 10 years). Cancer specialist main providers were associated with less prevalent discontinuity (0.81; 0.66-0.99 vs. primary care). Better scores on all three care-coordination summary measures were associated with less prevalent discontinuity: main provider (0.73; 0.64-0.83), across multiple providers (0.81; 0.78-0.83), patient-provider partnership (0.85; 0.80-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Care discontinuity among childhood cancer survivors is prevalent and requires intervention.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".