A consultation with Canadian rural women with breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Relatively little research has been carried out on the health and supportive care needs of rural women living with breast cancer. In this study, results from a Canadian focus group study are used to highlight issues of importance to rural women. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 276 rural women with breast cancer divided into 17 focus groups participated in the study conducted across Canada. A standardized protocol for discussion was employed. Issues of access to information, support and services were discussed, with women describing their experiences in trying to find appropriate programmes and services. MAIN RESULTS: The major theme identified through analysis of qualitative data was 'becoming aware of and/or gaining access to health care information, support and services.' Other major themes included: (1) dealing with isolation; (2) having to travel; (3) feeling the financial burden and (4) coping with changing work. CONCLUSIONS: Rural women with breast cancer have supportive care challenges related to their circumstances. A series of recommendations were generated through the consultation process which are contributing to the development of a national strategy focusing on the development and extension of programmes for rural women with breast cancer. Although the research on the project was not to specified standards, and suffered from less attention than community capacity building and advocacy, it proved to be of worth and revealed potential benefits from collaborations between researchers and community organizations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".