Usefulness of a patient experience study to adjust psychosocial oncology and spiritual care services according to patients’ needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little is known about how cancer patients experience psychosocial and spiritual care services and about what services they feel should be offered in order to help them meet their actual needs. This study’s main goal was to examine how cancer patients experienced the psychosocial oncology and spiritual care (POSC) services they received, in order to adjust the service offer according to their expressed needs and expectancies. A qualitative design approach was used. The study was conducted in two phases: (1) Collection of the patients’ perspective and divulgation of the results to the clinical team and managers; and (2) assessment of the impact of the patient experience study results on the clinical team’s services and managerial decisions. Suggestions for improvement were gathered mainly around the themes of service delivery and information about services. Contrary to what was expected, delays to access service responded to patients’ needs and expectations. According to clinical managers, patients’ perspectives on their services legitimized the maintenance of certain services, and were levers that helped make coherent and targeted changes. They felt the changes they made were patient-driven instead of being driven by staff’s perception of patients’ needs. The fact that results emerged from a fairly large and structured patient experience evaluation had an impact on the motivation of stakeholders to initiate changes. These results suggest that collecting patients’ perspective will likely help clinicians and managers tailor service delivery to meet patients’ needs and expectations and may contribute to set more informative standards regarding access to care delays.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".