MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411413007 · doi:10.2196/58999

Care Coordination and Patient Satisfaction With Ambulatory Cancer Care During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Manitoba, Canada: Report of An Online Survey Study of Patient-Reported Experience Measures With Interpretation Guided by Fit Theory

2025· article· en· W4411413007 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Maclean Thiessen, Andrea Soriano, Jason Park, Kathleen Decker

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaResearch Institute in Oncology and HematologyUniversity of ManitobaCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicInterpretation (philosophy)Medicine2019-20 coronavirus outbreakAmbulatoryPatient satisfactionAmbulatory carePatient careFamily medicineNursingHealth careVirologyPolitical scienceInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: In Manitoba, Canada, the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care delivery included, but was not limited to, disruption of many routine health care services, and the rapid introduction of both social distancing and virtual care. Little was known about how COVID-19-related changes to cancer care delivery would impact patient satisfaction with care and care coordination. Objective: This report aims to present and interpret findings of an online survey of people with oncology-related conditions in Manitoba, Canada, during the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring patient satisfaction and care coordination. Methods: A link to an online survey was made available to patients receiving cancer treatment in Manitoba, Canada, between July 31, 2020, and February 28, 2022. The survey included validated patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) for patient satisfaction and care coordination. Analysis included the generation of descriptive statistics and logistic regression, including univariate and multivariate analysis using stepwise model building. The survey results were interpreted using fit theory as a theoretical lens. Results: A total of 203 responses were collected, of which 154 had completed responses for all PREM measures and were included in the analysis. Response rate is estimated at 3.3%-2.0%. The average age was 65 (SD 11.7) years. Most respondents were male (n=79, 52.7%). Most respondents were being treated with curative intent (n=81, 53.6%). The most common type of cancer was breast (n=41, 26.6%). Univariate analysis demonstrated that ages 60-69 years were associated with above average patient satisfaction (OR 2.205, 95% CI 1.045-4.624; P=.04). Age <60 years (OR 0.437, 95% CI 0.204-0.934; P=.03) and European Cooperative Group functional status (ECOG) ≥2 (OR 0.327, 95% CI 0.137-0.782; P=.01) were associated with below average patient satisfaction. Age <60 years, ECOG ≥2, and hematological cancer were selected through stepwise multivariate model building, resulting in an explanatory model (R2=0.129) of patient satisfaction. ECOG ≥2 was associated with below-average care coordination (OR 0.357, 95% CI 0.145-0.880; P=.03), and was the only identified predictor of care coordination, with no explanatory multivariate model generated. Fit theory supports that the level of patient satisfaction and care coordination in each population subset inversely reflects a relative level of unmet supportive care need. Conclusions: Survey respondents with poor functional status, those outside the 60-69 years age range, and those with nonhematological malignancies likely experience increased unmet supportive care needs compared with their counterparts. Further research is needed to determine whether these findings reflect transient phenomena related to the COVID-19 pandemic, selection biases associated with the survey method used, or underlying health care delivery inequities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.678

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.321 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impactsFrench-language works237,207