A Patient-centered Approach to Evaluate the Information Needs of Women With Ductal Carcinoma In Situ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the information needs of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) patients. METHODS: Four focus groups involving 24 previously treated DCIS patients were conducted to develop a comprehensive list of questions they felt were important to have answered at the time of diagnosis. Using a survey, a separate group of patients treated for DCIS then rated the importance of having each of these questions addressed before treatment decision making. Response options were "essential," "desired," "not important," "no opinion," and "avoid." For each essential/desired question, respondents specified how addressing it would help them: "understand," "decide," "plan," "not sure," or "other." RESULTS: Focus group participants generated 117 questions used in the survey. Fifty-seven patients completed the survey (55% response rate). Respondents rated a median of 66 questions as essential. The most commonly cited reason for rating a question essential was to "understand," followed by to "decide." The top questions women deemed essential to help them understand were disease specific, whereas the top questions deemed essential to help women decide were predominantly treatment specific, pertaining to available options, recurrence and survival outcomes, and timelines to decide and start treatment. CONCLUSIONS: DCIS patients want a large number of questions answered, mostly for understanding, and also for deciding and planning. A core set of questions that most patients consider essential for decision making has been formulated and may be used in the clinical setting and in research to develop educational resources and decision-making tools specific to DCIS.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".