Problem-Solving Strategies of Women Undergoing Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer experience side effects that make it difficult to perform daily occupations. PURPOSE: To summarize the types of challenges, goals, and adaptive strategies identified by women with stage 1-3 breast cancer participating in a pilot study of Problem-solving Treatment-Occupational Therapy (PST-OT). METHODS: Content analysis of 80 PST-OT sessions. FINDINGS: Women addressed 11 types of challenging activities, with exercise and instrumental activities of daily living (IADL) being the most common. Most women set a goal to adapt a current activity, but also set goals to find a new activity, plan the steps of a current activity, or gather information about a possible activity change in the future. The adaptive strategies generated by the women were grouped into five types. Most often they found ways to add a new step to an activity, but they also brainstormed about when, how, where, and with whom they could do activities. IMPLICATIONS: The women were usually trying to adapt familiar activities but also were looking for ways to include new, healthy occupations into their routines.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".