MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402660641 · doi:10.1016/j.gore.2024.101510

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) guided gynecologic/oncology surgery – The patient’s perspective

2024· article· en· W4402660641 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Emma Sian Jenkins, Rachel Crooks, Khara M. Sauro, Gregg Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueGynecologic Oncology Reports · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEnhanced Recovery After Surgery
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineGynecologic oncologyPerspective (graphical)General surgeryGynecologic cancerClinical OncologySurgeryOncologyInternal medicineOvarian cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Awareness of ERAS was low in participants undergoing ERAS-guided gynecologic/oncology surgery. • Participant expectations were shaped by previous health experiences and information provided by healthcare providers. • Positive experiences of ERAS-guided surgery were reported when expectations aligned with delivery of care. • Patient education comprises a key element of the ERAS pathway, thus there is a need for significant improvement. • Providing personalised information can empower patients to actively engage in their care, which is required. Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have demonstrated improvements in outcomes following benign gynecologic and gynecologic oncology surgery. However, there is limited data reporting the benefit of ERAS from the patient’s perspective. This study aimed to explore patient knowledge of and experience with ERAS-guided surgery. This interpretive descriptive study included participants who had undergone ERAS-guided gynecologic and gynecologic oncology surgery in Alberta, Canada using convenience sampling. Semi-structured interviews explored patient knowledge of ERAS, overall experience with surgery and recommended changes for surgical care. An inductive thematic analysis was conducted. Eight females aged 26–76 years old participated in the study who had gynecologic (n = 4) and gynecologic oncology (n = 4) surgery. Six themes central to participant experience of ERAS-guided surgery were identified: patient expectations, individual motivation, values and support, healthcare provider communication, trust in healthcare providers, COVID-19 and care co-ordination. Overall, specific knowledge of ERAS was low. Expectations were set by previous experience of healthcare (previous surgery or occupation), as well as information provided by healthcare professionals. Participants whose expectations aligned with physical experience of ERAS provided favourable perspectives. Participants recommended improving the quality, relevance and availability of information and establishing accessible follow up strategies. Based on the finding that knowledge about ERAS was minimal, we advocate for improved education pertaining to ERAS recommendations. Acknowledging patients’ expertise and motivation to engage in their care maybe one strategy to improve compliance with ERAS guidelines and improve outcomes for both patients and the healthcare system.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGynecologic Oncology ReportsSame topicEnhanced Recovery After SurgeryFrench-language works237,207