Integration of social determinants of health in quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quality indicators (QIs) are standardized measures for tracking healthcare performance. However, the integration of social determinants of health (SDoH) in developing and reporting QIs remains unclear. This scoping review explores the use of SDoH in QIs for colorectal cancer (CRC) surgery, to assess gaps and provide practical recommendations for better integration of SDoH in cancer care systems. Of 113 studies, 70 (61.9%) reported QIs for healthcare systems, 33 (29.2%) measured factors associated with QIs, and 10 (8.9%) developed QIs. SDoH were assessed in 65 (57.5%) studies, with notable gaps including inadequate adjustment for confounders and interactions, lack of additive effect assessments, and the absence of conceptual social frameworks to guide study design. To support equity in quality monitoring, future research should incorporate SDoH when describing and validating outcomes, report QIs stratified by SDoH, and develop benchmarks for variations in QIs across sociodemographic groups.
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 | 0.073 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".