Health Care Strategies to Promote Earlier Presentation of Symptomatic Breast Cancer: Perspectives of Women and Family Physicians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many women with symptoms suggestive of a breast cancer diagnosis delay presentation to their family physician. Although factors associated with delay have been well described, there is a paucity of data on strategies to mitigate delay. OBJECTIVES: We conducted a qualitative research project to examine factors related to delay and to identify health care system changes that might encourage earlier presentation. METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with women who sought care 12 weeks or more after self-detection of breast cancer symptoms and with family physicians whose practices included patients meeting that criterion. RESULTS: The women and physicians both suggested a need for clearer screening mammography guidelines for women 40-49 years of age and for better messaging concerning breast awareness. The use of additional hopeful testimonials from breast cancer survivors were suggested to help dispel the notion of cancer as a "death sentence." Educational initiatives were proposed, aimed at both increasing awareness of "non-lump" breast cancer symptoms and advising women that a previous benign diagnosis does not ensure that future symptoms are not cancer. Women wanted empathic nonjudgmental access to care. Improved methods to track compliance with screening mammography and with periodic health exams and access to a rapid diagnostic process were suggested. CONCLUSIONS: A list of "at-risk situations for delay" in diagnosis of breast cancer was developed for physicians to assist in identifying women who might delay. Health care system changes actionable both at the health policy level and in the family physician's office were identified to encourage earlier presentation of women with symptomatic breast cancer.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".