Women With Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy treatment for cancer diseases can cause body pain during adjuvant therapy. OBJECTIVE: The aim was to describe the perceived impact of adjuvant chemotherapy-induced pain (CHIP) on the daily lives of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer, using triangulation. METHOD: Fifty-seven women scheduled for chemotherapy in doses of 75 mg/m or greater of epirubicin and/or docetaxel participated. Twenty-two of these women registered pain with values of 4 or more on the visual analog scale on day 10 following chemotherapy. Of these 22, 16 participated in an interview and colored a printed body image. A qualitative thematic stepwise analysis of the interviews was performed. RESULTS: Chemotherapy-induced pain had a profound impact on daily life. Ten women reported the worst possible pain, with visual analog scale scores of 8 to 10. Three different categories crystallized: perception (A) of manageable pain, which allowed the women to maintain their daily lives; perception (B) of pain beyond imagination, whereby the impact of pain had become more complex; and perception (C) of crippling pain, challenging the women's confidence in survival. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the inability to capture CHIP with 1 method only; it is thus necessary to use complimentary methods to capture pain. We found that pain had a considerable impact on daily life, with surprisingly high scores of perceived pain, findings that to date have been poorly investigated qualitatively. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Nurses need to (1) better identify, understand and treat CHIP, using instruments and protocols; and (2) provide improved communication about pain and pain management.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".