MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2161074122 · doi:10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs14-p2-09-03

Abstract P2-09-03: Got patient advocates? The value of patient advocate participation in a large research study to develop personalized risk-based breast cancer screening strategies

2015· article· en· W2161074122 sur OpenAlexaff
Vernal Branch, Carolyn Achenbach, Kathleen G Ross, Wendy Cohn, Martin D. Yaffe, William A. Knaus, Jennifer A. Harvey

Notice bibliographique

RevueCancer Research · 2015
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésBreast cancerMedicineFamily medicineBreast cancer screeningFocus groupMammographyCancerInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Over the last several years there has been confusion among women about breast cancer screening and patient advocates are increasingly used to help women understand the changes. In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Task Force (USPSTF) recommended that women under the age of 50 do not need routine screening. New state laws require breast density results to be given to women and their providers for making their screening choices. Women are not sure what to do with this information and are offered little guidance to personalize their screening recommendations. The goal of this study is to develop a risk model for improved personalized breast cancer screening recommendations. Patient advocates were incorporated throughout the design, recruitment, analysis, and dissemination phases of the study. Methods: The research team included three patient advocates who participated as full members in the bi-weekly and quarterly team meetings throughout the duration of the study. All advocates were breast cancer survivors. The primary components of the study included focus groups to understand women’s knowledge and views on breast density as well as personalized screening, a telephone survey to gain a broader view on these topics, and recruitment to a case:control study to build a breast cancer risk model that incorporates an automated measure of breast density. Results: Enrollment was completed over one year with 3,445 women; 839 cases and 2,606 controls. Study design and resulting recruitment strategies were reviewed early with regular feedback by the patient advocates. At the advice of the advocates, Facebook was chosen as primary social media, resulting in nearly 200 posts (stories) and 1583 likes for the project. Many of the posts were generated by or featured advocates. Regarding the focus groups, the advocates developed the questions. Women were informed about the study by the advocates and educated about breast density. The advocates were key in using the focus groups to find the right language for enrollment materials, obtain their perception of the importance of the study, and understand their views regarding a new model for personalized screening for women. The advocates were likewise key in developing questions for and analyzing results of the telephone survey. In the analysis phase, the advocates assisted the team in understanding the results of the risk questionnaires. For example, most women did not know the type of breast cancer that they had been diagnosed with or even if it was invasive. The advocates confirmed how and why even highly educated women would not necessarily retain this information. Finally, the advocates will have a strong role in the eventual dissemination of the study findings to women. Conclusions: The investigators have developed a breast cancer risk model that includes an automated measurement of breast density, with the goal of personalizing screening for women. The inclusion of patient advocates throughout all phases of the study improved knowledge and insight of the investigating team. Their role extended beyond community engagement and development of study materials. The advocates became integral members of the study team. Citation Format: Vernal Branch, Carolyn Achenbach, Kathleen G Ross, Wendy F Cohn, Martin D Yaffe, William A Knaus, Jennifer A Harvey. Got patient advocates? The value of patient advocate participation in a large research study to develop personalized risk-based breast cancer screening strategies [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Thirty-Seventh Annual CTRC-AACR San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium: 2014 Dec 9-13; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2015;75(9 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-09-03.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,236
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,280
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesMétarecherche
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,764
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,942

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,2360,280
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0060,002
Communication savante0,0050,006
Science ouverte0,0020,006
Intégrité de la recherche0,0050,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0110,002

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,271
Tête enseignante GPT0,507
Écart entre enseignants0,236 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; l’étiquette directe de Gemma et le classifieur distillé Codex s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2015
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueCancer Research→Même sujetGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→Travaux en français237 207→