44 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER EXPERIENCE IN THE REFERRAL OF CANADIAN PAEDIATRIC ONCOLOGY PATIENTS FOR PROTON BEAM RADIATION: A SURVEY-BASED ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Proton beam therapy is becoming more widely utilized in paediatric cancer treatment due to its ability to deliver highly targeted radiation, reducing damage to surrounding healthy tissues. Countries that do not have proton beam therapy facilities, such as Canada, face major logistical challenges to facilitate access to this treatment abroad. The objective of this study was to gain a better understanding of the health care provider (HCP) experience and perspective in the referral and treatment process of children who were prescribed proton radiation. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey study on HCPs involved in caring for paediatric oncology patients across Canada. After obtaining individual consent, HCPs completed a survey of up to 11 questions that explored the provider’s involvement in the referral process, treatment, or follow-up care of patients who received proton beam radiation. Results: We received 47 survey responses: 27 physicians, 4 trainees, 13 nurses, and 3 allied health staff. Proton beam therapy recommendations were driven by its therapeutic benefits, including precise tumour targeting and reduced late effects. Patient and family factors, such as travel, time away from home, and costs, were also considered. Barriers included disruption to continuity of care across teams and challenges with provincial health authority approval for out-of-province medical and supportive care. Conclusion: Medical and patient factors play a significant role in the HCP decision to pursue proton beam therapy. Further studies are required to explore strategies to improve referral pathways, streamline care coordination, and enhance communication among providers to ensure equitable access and optimal patient outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".