Preferences of Pediatric Oncology Patients and Caregivers on the Availability of Patient Results in an Online Patient Portal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Access to cancer-related data in online patient portals is not uniform. Perspectives of pediatric patients with cancer and caregivers on their desires and experiences accessing cancer-related data via an online patient portal have been poorly described. These perspectives are crucial for informing both hospital-level policies and governmental regulations. This study aims to explore the preferences of pediatric oncology patients and their caregivers regarding the timing of medical test result release into online portals. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted at a tertiary academic pediatric center in Toronto, Canada. English-speaking pediatric patients with cancer age 12 years and older, as well as their caregivers, were invited to participate. A 59-question survey was administered to participants between June and August 2024. RESULTS: A total of 105 participants, including 40 patients and 65 caregivers, completed the survey. Forty-one (53.9%) participants reported that a health care provider had discussed with them the possibility that they might be viewing test results online before their care team had reviewed the result. Immediate release of test results was preferred across most testing domains, with >80% of participants favoring immediate access, even for sensitive oncology-related results. Less than 1% of participants believed that genetic or cancer recurrence results should be withheld until reviewed by an oncology provider. No participants reported increased worry as a result of viewing test results online. CONCLUSION: This study reveals a strong preference among pediatric oncology patients and their caregivers for immediate access to test results, challenging traditional concerns about the psychological impact of early release. These findings suggest that oncology practices should consider aligning their policies with patient and caregiver preferences.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".