Women Undergoing Breast Diagnostics: The Lived Experience of Spirituality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To explore perceptions of spirituality in women who had undergone a breast diagnostic experience. RESEARCH APPROACH: Qualitative, phenomenologic study using Giorgi's approach. SETTING: An outpatient comprehensive breast assessment center. PARTICIPANTS: 20 Caucasian women, aged 30-89, who had just completed the diagnostic process, including definitive diagnosis, regarding a breast abnormality. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: In-depth, semistructured, tape-recorded, and transcribed interviews analyzed using the Giorgi method of coding, transforming, and synthesizing data. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Descriptions of spirituality, spiritual needs, and supporting spirituality. FINDINGS: Two themes emerged: creating a focused isolation and seeking connections. Women created a private mental world in which to concentrate on the stressful diagnostic process. Within the isolation, women explored their personal strength and their connection to God or their spiritual beliefs. When the stress began to overwhelm, they sought out loved ones for support and diversion. Women found the center's staff to be supportive; however, many did not wish to speak to an agency chaplain during the uncertain period. CONCLUSIONS: Women needed to handle the stress alone, with reliance on spirituality and God that was balanced with a need for specific connections to family members or close friends. INTERPRETATION: Nurses can support women's need to focus and can assist family members to understand their role during the diagnostic period. The diagnostic period can be used to talk with women about their spiritual beliefs, their needs, and possible referral to a chaplain.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".