“Cautiously Optimistic That Today Will Be Another Day With My Disease Under Control”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Women diagnosed with ovarian cancer face a multitude of physical, psychological, and social issues. However, existing research has typically focused on those newly diagnosed with an initial occurrence or recurrence or women with advanced disease. As such, few studies have examined women's experiences across the illness trajectory and the impact of ovarian cancer on their everyday lives. OBJECTIVE: This research explores women's lived experiences of ovarian cancer and how they negotiate and make sense of illness-related issues. METHODS: Sixteen women participated in face-to-face interviews and e-mail follow-ups that were informed by hermeneutic and social phenomenological approaches. RESULTS: Five broad themes emerged from data analysis related to changes in health status and the body, disruptions to everyday activities and relationships, uncertainty, and coping and finding meaning in illness. These themes reflect the structures of participants' experiences and constitute the essence of living with ovarian cancer, "cautious optimism." CONCLUSIONS: This research contributes to our understanding of women's lived experiences of ovarian cancer across the illness trajectory; specifically, the findings indicate that embodiment and relationships were a central focus for participants as they sought to cope with myriad issues resulting from ovarian cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Insight into women's ovarian cancer experiences can help nurses in their provision of care to this population. Furthermore, the findings can inform support interventions for affected women across the illness trajectory, as participants' experiences show that support needs often persist following treatment as women negotiate survivorship or recurrence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".