Women's perceptions and experience of adjuvant tamoxifen therapy account for their adherence: breast cancer patients' point of view
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study on primary breast cancer patients undergoing adjuvant tamoxifen treatment was to determine how their perceptions of the treatment and their experience of side-effects contributed to their adherence to the treatment. METHODS: A consecutive series of primary breast cancer patients eligible for tamoxifen therapy were studied qualitatively by conducting semi-structured in-depth interviews at two French cancer centres. RESULTS: The women aged 35-65 (N=34) were struggling with several issues involving their understanding and experience of the treatment, which have not been documented so far. These issues included confusion about the 'hormonal' nature and activity of tamoxifen and the etiology of the changes in their menopausal status, as well as the symbolic associations formed by patients about the paradox of taking a treatment that has aging effects but saves lives. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the great physical burden often associated with tamoxifen treatment and brings to light women's own complex representations of the treatment and their interpretation of the side-effects. Better communication between health-care providers and patients should ultimately help to prevent refusal or discontinuation of tamoxifen treatment.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".