Women's views on chemoprevention of breast cancer: qualitative study.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: To determine, in a family practice setting, women's views on incentives for and barriers to taking chemopreventive therapy for breast cancer. DESIGN: Descriptive, qualitative study using in-depth semistructured interviews. SETTING: Women's College Family Practice Health Centre, an academic centre in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: THREE GROUPS OF WOMEN WERE RECRUITED: women who might in future be candidates for chemoprevention, women who were then candidates for chemoprevention, and then-current participants in the Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR) chemoprevention trial. METHOD: Women were asked about their views on taking a pill to prevent breast cancer, their hopes and expectations regarding chemoprevention, incentives for and barriers to accepting chemopreventive therapy, and their preferred sources of information. Visual analogue scales were used to estimate perceived risk of breast cancer and personal interest in chemoprevention. Participants' Gail scores, perceptions of risk of breast cancer, perceptions of likelihood of accepting chemopreventive treatment, attitudes, views, and experiences were recorded. MAIN FINDINGS: The 27 women interviewed (median age 61 years, range 38 to 77) had a mean Gail score of 3.3 (indicating a 3.3% estimated risk of breast cancer within the next 5 years), range 1.4 to 6.8. Women were very interested in chemoprevention (62% to 67% likelihood of their taking it in the next 5 years). Perceived risk of breast cancer was not correlated with actual risk or with likelihood of taking chemopreventive therapy. To accept chemoprevention, women needed to know it would lead to an acceptable decrease in risk of breast cancer and needed more information about the medication. Incentives for acceptance included clear evidence of efficacy, prevention of cancer, altruism (contributing to an important area of research), secondary gain, and the feeling of being proactive and in control. Barriers included fear of side effects, lack of information, denial, aversion to medication, the term "chemoprevention," and the effect of the "HRT fiasco." Women's most trusted information source was their family physicians. Women overestimated their risk of breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Women were interested in chemoprevention, but required more information, preferably from their family physicians. Our data suggest that at least 4 conditions must be met for women to accept chemopreventive therapy. They must believe in its effectiveness, be proactive about their health care, believe side effects will be tolerable, and be able to overcome the fear of ingesting a pill. To make the therapy more acceptable, the term "chemoprevention" should be discontinued.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».