MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implementation and evaluation of a virtual long-term follow-up clinic for allogeneic stem cell transplant survivors using the RE-AIM framework.

2025· article· en· W4414913292 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tommy Alfaro Moya, Hilary Weatherby, Iqra Ashfaq, Vanessa Loiacono, Alyssa Macedo, Neesha C. Dhani, Lisa Tinker, Jonas Mattsson, Auro Viswabandya

Bibliographic record

VenueJCO Oncology Practice · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCancer Genomics and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkCancer Care OntarioPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpecialtyPatient satisfactionHematopoietic stem cell transplantationHematopoietic stem cellMEDLINEHealth careVirtual realityYoung adult

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

562 Background: Long-term follow-up (LTFU) care is essential for survivors of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (allo-HCT). Travel distance to specialty centers can pose a significant barrier to accessing care. We implemented a virtual LTFU clinic at a tertiary cancer center to reduce these burdens and optimize service delivery. Methods: This initiative used the RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) to evaluate a virtual LTFU clinic for allo-HCT survivors. Eligible patients were ≥2 years post-transplant, clinically stable, off immunosuppression, and followed by a primary care provider. From October 21, 2024, to March 10, 2025, patients were screened and invited to transition to virtual care via MSTeams or phone. Requisitions for required bloodwork were emailed in advance, and results were integrated into the EMR and reviewed with patients during the visit. A Patient Flow Coordinator facilitated scheduling and preparation. Patient-reported experience measures were collected through REDCap surveys pre- and post-intervention. Results: Patients reported improved satisfaction and greater involvement in care. Virtual care eliminated perceived barriers and was particularly valuable for those living far from the hospital. Key results are summarized in the table. Of the 77 eligible patients who declined virtual care, common reasons included: pre-existing plans to be in Toronto, preference for in-person visits, or having concurrent medical appointments. Notably, 13 (28.9%) of those who declined expressed interest in participating in the virtual program in the following year. Conclusions: Virtual LTFU care is a feasible and effective model for allo-HCT survivors, particularly in settings where distance impedes access. In comparison to baseline level, patients reported improved satisfaction, a greater sense of involvement in care, and fewer logistical challenges. With proper infrastructure, communication, and EMR integration, virtual care can enhance accessibility, equity and quality in long-term transplant survivorship. Measure Value Patients screened 203 Eligible for virtual care 125 (61.6%) Completed virtual visit 48 (38.4% of eligible) Mode of visit: MS Teams 33 (68.8%) Mode of visit: Phone 15 (31.3%) Avg. patient distance to hospital 140.8 km (range: 4.7-1543 km) Reported no barriers (intervention) 100% Felt involved in care (median score) 5 Satisfied with time spent (median score) 5

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)0.002
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.369 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJCO Oncology PracticeSame topicCancer Genomics and DiagnosticsFrench-language works237,207