MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087285948 · doi:10.1097/ncc.0b013e3181d1c853

"A Struggle Between Vanity and Life"

2010· article· en· W2087285948 on OpenAlexaff
Su‐Ying Fang, Lynda G. Balneaves, Bih‐Ching Shu

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Nursing · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBreast Implant and Reconstruction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast reconstructionMedicineAmbivalenceBreast cancerFeelingQualitative researchAcknowledgementPhenomenological methodDaughterMastectomyRegretSociocultural evolutionPsychotherapistPsychologySocial psychologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Background: Understanding the role of sociocultural factors on women's experiences of breast reconstruction is needed to provide better care and avoid erroneous assumptions of these women's needs. Objective: The purpose of this study was to understand the lived experiences of Taiwanese women with breast cancer who receive breast reconstruction following mastectomy in Taiwan. Methods: A qualitative research design, guided by the philosophy of hermeneutic phenomenology, was selected to guide the study. In-depth interviews were conducted 1 to 2 times with each participant and explored the women's experiences related to making decisions about, undergoing, and recovering from breast reconstruction. Results: Seven women who received either autologous breast reconstruction or saline implants were recruited in southern Taiwan. Five themes were identified, including "dream of a wonderful future," "unexpected reality," "struggling to accept," "balancing vanity with life priorities," and "coming to terms: no regret." Conclusion: Taiwanese women felt ambivalent about their new breasts, which failed to meet their expectations. This ambivalence, combined with a culture that values selflessness and the placement of family first, resulted in many women feeling guilty, vain, and superficial for requesting breast reconstruction. Implications for Practice: Clinical implications include the importance of regular and authentic patient-health care provider communication throughout the process of breast reconstruction, including recovery, and better acknowledgement of Taiwanese women's body image concerns associated with breast reconstruction. Background: Understanding the role of sociocultural factors on women's experiences of breast reconstruction is needed to provide better care and avoid erroneous assumptions of these women's needs. Objective: The purpose of this study was to understand the lived experiences of Taiwanese women with breast cancer who receive breast reconstruction following mastectomy in Taiwan. Methods: A qualitative research design, guided by the philosophy of hermeneutic phenomenology, was selected to guide the study. In-depth interviews were conducted 1 to 2 times with each participant and explored the women's experiences related to making decisions about, undergoing, and recovering from breast reconstruction. Results: Seven women who received either autologous breast reconstruction or saline implants were recruited in southern Taiwan. Five themes were identified, including "dream of a wonderful future," "unexpected reality," "struggling to accept," "balancing vanity with life priorities," and "coming to terms: no regret." Conclusion: Taiwanese women felt ambivalent about their new breasts, which failed to meet their expectations. This ambivalence, combined with a culture that values selflessness and the placement of family first, resulted in many women feeling guilty, vain, and superficial for requesting breast reconstruction. Implications for Practice: Clinical implications include the importance of regular and authentic patient - health care provider communication throughout the process of breast reconstruction, including recovery, and better acknowledgement of Taiwanese women's body image concerns associated with breast reconstruction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.842
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer NursingSame topicBreast Implant and ReconstructionFrench-language works237,207