Formal Evaluation of PYNK: Breast Cancer Program for Young Women—The Patient Perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to assess patient satisfaction with pynk: Breast Cancer Program for Young Women so as to determine how the program might be improved and to provide feedback to donors. METHODS: All pynk patients who had consented to have their information entered in our database and who supplied us with their e-mail address were invited to complete a 58-item online questionnaire consisting of multiple choice and open-ended questions. Domains included demographics, provision of written and spoken information, support, infertility risk, research awareness, attitudes toward discharge, and general feedback. RESULTS: Of 120 pynk patients approached, 61 (51%) participated. More than 90% were satisfied or very satisfied with the timing, usefulness, and clarity of spoken and written information given, and 69% found the service and support provided by the nurse navigator to be the most helpful component of the program. Of those who had received systemic therapy, 93% recalled a health care provider initiating a discussion of the risk of treatment-related infertility, and 67% were referred to a fertility clinic. On the negative side, 11%-27% were unaware of various services provided by pynk, and 11% were unaware of pynk's ongoing research. One third of patients were unhappy or ambivalent about the prospect of discharge from the program. CONCLUSIONS: Patient satisfaction with this novel program for young women with breast cancer is high. This study highlights the critical role that the nurse navigator plays in patient support and dissemination of information. In contrast to other reported surveys of young cancer patients, pynk patients are routinely given the opportunity to undergo fertility preservation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".