Resource use in women completing treatment for breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore resources used by women completing treatment for breast cancer, how they learned about them, and the psychological factors that predicted their use. DESIGN: A questionnaire on resource use was administered as part of a randomized clinical trial which assessed subjects' psychosocial characteristics and tested the outcomes of a psychosocial intervention. SETTING: Women completing treatment for breast cancer were recruited from the oncology departments of three university-teaching hospitals in Montreal. A questionnaire gathered data on the resources used by the subjects, how they learned about them, and the role of the health care team in their decision-making. Emotional distress, dimensions of coping effort, a sense of control and optimism were also measured. RESULTS: Five categories of resources were explored; professional services, informal support networks, informational resources, support organizations and complementary therapies. Most women found out about the last two resources by themselves. Women who used cancer support organizations or complementary therapies scored high on the use of problem-solving coping and low on the use of escape/avoidance coping. In addition they were moderately optimistic, had a slightly lower sense of personal control and were somewhat more distressed than the non-users. The use of support organizations and complementary therapies appears to represent a thoughtful approach to dealing with the distress of cancer. The opinion of the oncologist regarding resource use was valued by nearly half of the sample.
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) | 0.003 | 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".