Breast Cancer Screening: Women's Experiences of Waiting for Further Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To describe anxiety experienced by participants in a breast cancer screening program who have received an abnormal screening mammography result and are waiting for further testing and diagnosis and to identify the social support needed during this period. DESIGN: Exploratory, descriptive. SETTING: Quebec Breast Cancer Screening Program (QBCSP) participants in Montreal, Canada. SAMPLE: Nonprobability sample of 631 asymptomatic women, aged 50-69, who had abnormal screening mammogram results in the two months prior to the survey and who spoke or read French or English. METHODS: Mailed self-report questionnaire. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Anxiety, social support, and breast cancer screening. FINDINGS: Fifty-one percent of the participants were quite or very anxious at every stage of the prediagnostic phase. Seventy-five percent expressed their feelings to family and friends whose support was comforting but did not diminish participants' anxiety. Satisfaction from social support offered by healthcare professionals reduced their anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: To decrease anxiety in the prediagnostic phase, women need support from healthcare professionals during the early stage of the screening process to prevent exacerbation of their concerns. Support has to be integrated into a continuity-of-care process. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Nurses can play a significant role in breast cancer screening programs. They can evaluate, at an early stage, participant anxiety and offer the appropriate social support. They also can ensure the follow-up and personalized support required while a patient awaits a diagnosis.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".