Primary care for young adult cancer survivors: an international perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Internationally, family physicians (FP) are not routinely involved in young adult cancer (YAC) care. In this short report, we would like to make a compelling argument for primary care involvement. METHODS: Comparative descriptions and literature review. RESULTS: Cancer among YAs is rare and usually not the first thing that comes into the FP's mind. Youth is sometimes mistakenly regarded as a protective factor. Across the countries, almost all YACs are treated in tertiary health care facilities with specialists providing the majority of care. Health care services are covered by the universal health insurance in Denmark, The Netherlands, and Canada but not in the US. Once the YAC has completed acute treatment and follow-up care, they often return to the care of the FPs who may potentially be expected to deal with and take action upon any possible medical, mental health, and psychosocial issues the YA cancer patient may present with. The role of the FP in follow-up care seems to be very limited. CONCLUSIONS: YACs in the western world seem to have comparable medical and psychosocial problems. However, the nature of health insurance is such that it impacts differently on the care of this group of cancer patients. Primary care features such as patient-centered, integrated, and comprehensive care over extended periods of time bring the FP into the unique position to provide follow-up for YAC. However, this will require integrating patient's perspectives on their care, professional continuing medical education (CME) initiatives, and an enhanced cooperative effort between those delivering and coordinating cancer care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".