MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401806951 · doi:10.1186/s41687-024-00759-z

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health-related quality of life of cancer patients in British Columbia

2024· article· en· W4401806951 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaKelowna General HospitalSimon Fraser UniversityCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control
FundersCanadian Cancer Society Research InstituteCanadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control
KeywordsPandemicMedicineTelehealthResidenceQuality of life (healthcare)Health careCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Family medicineCancerScale (ratio)GerontologyMental healthTelemedicineDemographyNursingPsychiatryDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in unprecedented changes to cancer care in many countries, impacting cancer patients' lives in numerous ways. This study examines the impact of changes in cancer care on patient's health-related quality of life (HRQL), which is a key outcome in cancer care. The study aims to estimate patients' self-reported HRQL before and during the pandemic and identify predictive factors for their physical and mental wellbeing. METHOD: The study employed the large-scale Outpatient Cancer Care (OCC) Patient Experience Survey, including the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey, to evaluate cancer patients' experiences and HRQL before (January to May 2020) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (May to July 2021). Paired t-tests were conducted to compare differences in Physical Component Scores (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) before and during the pandemic. Multivariable linear regressions were employed to investigate the factors (sociodemographic, clinical, and patient-reported experience) influencing PCS and MCS during the pandemic. RESULTS: PCS decreased significantly during the pandemic, while MCS remained stable. Lower PCS contributors included older age, more telehealth visits, self-reported hospitalization, and a longer time since the last cancer diagnosis. Higher PCS was associated with urban residence, higher MCS during the pandemic, and perceived active Healthcare Provider (HCP) involvement. For MCS, lower scores related to female gender and more telehealth visits, while higher scores were associated with being white, higher education, high MCS before the pandemic, and perceived active HCP involvement. CONCLUSION: The OCC Patient Experience Survey provides a unique patient level data set measuring HRQL pre- and post- the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study highlights challenges faced by cancer patients during the pandemic, with a significant reduction in PCS. However, the stability in MCS suggests effective coping mechanisms. Sociodemographic, clinical, and telehealth-related variables play a complex role in shaping both PCS and MCS. Perceived HCP involvement emerges as a crucial factor correlating with higher PCS and MCS. Navigating the post-pandemic era necessitates interventions fortifying patient-provider relationships, optimizing healthcare support systems, such as telehealth services, and prioritizing mental-well-being given its impact on both PCS and MCS.

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.

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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.354 · 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