Impact of Cross-Sectoral Video Consultation on Perceived Care Coordination and Information Satisfaction in Cancer Care: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Enhancing care coordination and sharing information in cancer care improves patient experiences by promoting clarity and satisfaction. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the impact of cross-sectoral video consultation on patient perceptions of care coordination and satisfaction with received information compared to usual care. METHODS: This study presents secondary outcomes on patient perceptions of care coordination and satisfaction with received information from a 7-month follow-up of the Partnership Project. In this randomized controlled trial, patients with cancer were allocated to either an intervention group receiving cross-sectoral video consultation (oncologist, general practitioner, and patient) or a control group receiving usual care. Patients' perceptions of care coordination and information quality were assessed using the Australian Cancer Care Coordination Questionnaire (CCCQ) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Information Questionnaire 25 at baseline and 7 months. Changes over time between groups were analyzed using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Of the 278 participants randomized (1:1), only 80 (28.8%) patients received the intervention due to technical and administrative issues. A total of 210 (75.5%) patients completed the baseline questionnaire, while 118 (42.4%) responded at 7 months. No significant differences were observed in the changes over time between the intervention and control groups in any outcome. The estimated differences in the change in score from baseline to 7 months were as follows: for the total CCCQ score, 1.11 (95% CI -2.32 to 4.53; P=.53); for the overall European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Information Questionnaire 25 score, 1.49 (95% CI -2.98 to 5.96; P=.51); for the CCCQ communication subscale, -1.49 (95% CI -1.33 to 4.31; P=.30); and for the navigation subscale, -0.03 (95% CI -1.52 to 1.46; P=.97). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate no statistically significant improvement in patients' reported care coordination or satisfaction with received information over 7 months. Technical issues with the video setup reduced fidelity rates and follow-up participation. Further research is needed to optimize the structure and content of cross-sectoral video consultations to better support patients' perceived outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02716168; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02716168.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".