“This is a kind of Betrayal”: A Qualitative Study of Disability after Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We proposed to document the effect of arm morbidity and disability in 40 Canadian women who were 12-24 months post breast cancer surgery. METHODS: We completed 40 qualitative interviews as one component of a multidisciplinary national longitudinal study of arm morbidity after breast cancer (n = 745) involving four research sites (Fredericton/Saint John, Montreal, Winnipeg, Surrey). During semi-structured interviews, participants who had reported arm morbidity and disability in earlier surveys were asked to discuss the effects of these conditions on everyday life. RESULTS: The interviewees reported making major adjustments to paid and unpaid work, which often involved the assistance of family members, thus demonstrating the effect of disability. Interview data resulted in the creation of a model that addresses arm morbidity and disability, and that holds implications for health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the interview findings, we conclude that a robust measure of disability after breast cancer should be developed. In the absence of a validated measure of the effect of disability, evaluating qualitative responses to questions about everyday activities could provide the impetus for provision of physical therapy and emotional support.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".