Collecting Data on the Social Determinants of Health to Advance Health Equity in Cancer Care in Canada: Patient and Community Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite advances in cancer care, disparities persist. The collection of the social determinants of health (SDOH) is fundamental to addressing disparities. However, SDOH are inconsistently collected in many regions of the world. This two-phase multiple methods study examined patient and community perspectives regarding SDOH data collection in Canada. In phase 1, a survey was administered to patients at a cancer centre (n = 549) to assess perspectives on an SDOH data collection tool. In phase 2, broader perspectives were sought through a community consultation with patient partners experiencing structural inequality (n = 15). Most participants were comfortable with SDOH data collection. Of survey respondents, 95% were comfortable with the collection of language, birthplace, sex, gender, education, and disability, and 82% to 94% were comfortable with SES, sexual orientation, social support, and race/ethnicity. Discomfort levels did not differ across subgroups, except women were more uncomfortable disclosing SES (OR: 2.00; 95%CI: 1.26, 3.19). Most (71%) preferred face-to-face data collection with a healthcare professional and only half were comfortable with storage of SDOH in electronic health records. Open-ended survey responses (n = 1533) and the community consultation revealed concerns about privacy, discrimination, relevance to care, and data accuracy. SDOH data collection efforts should include a clear rationale for patients, training for providers, strong data privacy and security measures, and actionable strategies to address needs.
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 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".