Utilization of Complementary/Alternative Services by Women with Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the utilization of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) services by women with breast cancer. Study participants were women with invasive breast cancer diagnosed 23-36 months prior to contact about the study, and randomly selected from the Ontario Cancer Registry. From among 1,119 eligible women sent survey questionnaires, 731 returned completed questionnaires (65%). A total of 20% of respondents used at least 1 CAM service. Among those who responded to a question about whether they would have liked specific services, 39% reported that there was at least one CAM service they would have liked to use, but were unable to access. Factors shown to be related to greater utilization of services included: younger age, higher household income, employed or student status, private health insurance coverage, and having received chemotherapy. Study results speak to the importance of acknowledging that professionals outside of the formal cancer care system play an important role for many patients. Patients would welcome experimentation with service models in which CAM practitioners and cancer specialists collaborate in providing care.
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) | 0.001 | 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".