Abstract A116: Assessment of equitable care for women of color with mBC
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract MD Anderson Cancer Center at Cooper in collaboration with The Chrysalis Initiative (TCI), sought to characterize the differences between the care that women of color (WOC) receive for metastatic breast cancer (mBC) compared to White women (WW), and understand the social determinants of health (SDOH) and palliative care (PC) needs that WOC with mBC face compared to WW. Twenty-eight WOC and 74 WW with mBC participated in an IRB approved telephone survey. The survey included questions on SDOH, understanding of PC, and the Edmonton System Assessment Scale which assesses symptoms common in cancer patients. WOC with mBC who participated tended to be less often married, more often had non-private insurance, and had lower educational levels and income. The only statistically significant response between the groups was that 50% of the WOC had ever heard of advance directives compared to 86.5% of WW (P<0.001). However, there were concerns for both groups including: 3 in 5 women had issues with lack of transportation to their appointments; 69% reported stress, nervousness, or anxiety; 78% were not following with a palliative care provider; 63% were dealing with pain; 59% were dealing with depression; 58% did not have a living will; 58% had not had an advanced directive discussed with them; 44% never heard of palliative care; and 40% had not had access to a social worker or nurse navigator. Also, TCI led 6 focus groups of women being treated for mBC at Cooper. Three focus groups comprised of 9 WOC with mBC, and 3 consisted of 15 WW with mBC. The goals of the focus groups were to gain insight into the factors influencing patient’s reasoning for their feelings towards the care they receive, and gain insight into the level of knowledge patients have about their breast cancer type, metastatic terminology, and other factors related to their journey. The themes identified suggest that important factors influence patients’ feelings about the care they receive including religion and faith, overall understanding of their treatment plan, willingness to research new treatment options on their own, and lifestyle and support systems that allow them to address and overcome barriers to care. WOC tended to have a poorer appreciation of their breast cancer disease and tumor characteristics and demonstrated lower health literacy or understanding of their mBC characteristics, and the relevance of these in their treatment plans. They had poorer knowledge of available support and palliative care resources and a higher incidence of feeling that they were not being listened to. Focus groups and surveys of women with mBC taught us that poor access to palliative care and social determinants of health disparities are prevalent for persons of color, and that having metastatic breast cancer is a burden for all ethnicities. Efforts need to continue to focus on educating WOC about their disease and its treatment. More importantly, we need to ensure that WOC have access to support services and opportunity to discuss their issues and concerns in a culturally competent manner. Citation Format: Evelyn Robles-Rodriguez, Ashley Weinmann, Generosa Grana, Jamil Rivers. Assessment of equitable care for women of color with mBC [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl):Abstract nr A116.
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 | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 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 ».