Are there opportunities to improve care as patients transition through the cancer care continuum? A scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients with cancer experience many Transitions in Care (TiC), occurring when a patient's care transfers between healthcare providers or institutions/settings. Among other patient populations, TiC are associated with medical errors, patient dissatisfaction and elevated healthcare use and expenditure. However, our understanding of TiC among patients with cancer is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To map and characterise evidence about TiC among patients with cancer. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with cancer at any stage in the cancer continuum. INTERVENTION: Evidence sources exploring TiC among patients with cancer were eligible. OUTCOME: Evidence sources exploring TiC among patients with cancer using any outcome were eligible. SETTING: Any setting where a patient with cancer received care. DESIGN: This scoping review included any study describing TiC among patients with cancer with no restrictions on study design, publication type, publication date or language. Evidence sources, identified by searching six databases using search terms for the population and TiC, were included if they described TiC. Two independent reviewers screened titles/abstracts and full texts for eligibility and completed data abstraction. Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics and qualitative data were synthesised using thematic analysis. RESULTS: This scoping review identified 801 evidence sources examining TiC among patients with cancer. Most evidence sources focused on the TiC between diagnosis and treatment and breast or colorectal cancer. Six themes emerged from the qualitative evidence sources: the transfer of information, emotional impacts of TiC, continuity of care, patient-related factors, healthcare provider-related factors and healthcare system-related factors. Interventions intended to improve TiC among patients with cancer were developed, implemented or reviewed in 163 evidence sources. CONCLUSION: While there is a large body of research related to TiC among patients with cancer, there remains a gap in our understanding of several TiC and certain types of cancer, suggesting the need for additional evidence exploring these areas.
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 | 0.024 | 0.116 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".