MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Women's perceptions of events impeding or facilitating the detection, investigation and treatment of breast cancer

2005· article· en· W2023922163 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cancer Care · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerHealth carePerceptionContext (archaeology)Exploratory researchFamily medicineQualitative researchMammographyCancerNursingInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An integrated network is currently being implemented in the province of Quebec in order to improve the cancer care continuum. In this context, formal trajectories for cancer patients through healthcare services are being established. The investigation of patients' perceptions of the healthcare continuum is essential as it allows us to identify the issue of continuity/discontinuity of health services. In addition, patients' perceptions of continuity of cancer care should be documented since they could influence the implementation of optimal trajectories through the healthcare services. An exploratory qualitative study was conducted in order to identify events, based on the perceptions of women with breast cancer, that made the patient progress more rapidly, facilitating events, or more slowly, impeding events, within the cancer care continuum. Two consecutive series of women receiving adjuvant radiation therapy in 2002 and 2003 at the University Hospital of Quebec City were recruited, for a total of 120 participants. A semi-structured interview was administered in order to identify women's perceptions regarding impeding and facilitating events during the detection, investigation and treatment periods of cancer, as well as the actors and reasons involved. Overall, 64% of women reported having at least one impeding event, while 68% reported at least one facilitating event. The periods most frequently affected by impeding or facilitating events were the investigation period, followed by the treatment period. The main stages affected by impeding or facilitating events were the scheduling of an appointment, during the investigation period, and the onset of treatment. Impeding events particularly affected the scheduling of mammography, the initial exam of the investigation for breast cancer, as well as the onset of radiation treatment. On the other hand, facilitating events mainly occurred at the time of the scheduling of medical consultations with specialists, during the investigation period, and of the onset of surgery. Finally, women generally perceived that impeding events were due to a lack in the availability of services and that facilitating events resulted from human intervention. Patients' perceptions, such as those regarding the importance of human intervention in the process of continuity of care, should be taken into account by healthcare authorities in charge of implementing cancer control programmes.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.669
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.277 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it