I wanted you to know: Breast cancer survivors’ control of workplace communication about cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Of working women diagnosed with cancer, approximately one-third will have breast cancer. Communicating about their cancer plays an important role in their workplace experience. It is challenging but helpful in eliciting needed social support and accommodations. Fully understanding such communication experiences is important in order to facilitate the well-being and success of such women in their workplaces. A qualitative study permits a richer account of the details of these workplace communications, and a deeper understanding of how women manage the complex and multifaceted communication process. This study used thematic analysis of semistructured interviews from 19 women working full time at the time of their breast cancer diagnosis. We found 3 themes that encapsulated unfolding individual experiences, representing a complex interplay of challenges to maintaining a sense of personal control in workplace responses: challenges to control posed by the experience of sharing information in the workplace about the woman's cancer, women's very individual attempts to control how information about their cancer was shared, and the mixed responses of those who were told. The result was unique individual trajectories in which empathic responses tailored to the individual's needs and preferences were most helpful. These findings can provide guidance on managing cancer communication for survivors, and on how to best support and accommodate women workers with breast cancer, facilitating their ability to control how their cancer impacts their work experience. Our website (http://www.iwantedyoutoknow.ca/) provides a video, tip sheet, and other resources for facilitating supportive communication in the workplace.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".