The experience of women receiving brachytherapy for gynecologic cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To explore and document the lived experience of receiving low-dose rate brachytherapy for gynecologic cancer. DESIGN: Qualitative method based on phenomenology. SETTING: Radiation treatment facility in a cancer-care setting in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. SAMPLE: Ten women between the ages of 36 and 75 (x = 59.2) receiving low-dose rate brachytherapy for cancer of the cervix or endometrium. METHODS: Verbatim data were analyzed manually using Giorgi's method of analyzing qualitative data. FINDINGS: Three themes emerged from the data: (a) women's experiences with brachytherapy were embedded within the complete context in which treatment was given, shaped by personal, environmental, and treatment-related factors, (b) the discomfort that women experienced during brachytherapy was perceived as a totality of symptoms including but not limited to pain, and (c) the brachytherapy experience was characterized by an intense focus on time and tensions embedded in issues related to time. CONCLUSIONS: When dealing with the brachytherapy treatment, women are concerned with the context in which the treatment is provided and the care that is associated with the treatment. Different and unique strategies assist women to get through treatment. Supportive nursing interventions can be implemented easily in the nursing care plan for women undergoing brachytherapy. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The aspects of nursing care that women perceive as positive, such as competence level of the nurse, symptom management, and providing information in sensory terms, should be strengthened. Alternatively, aspects of nursing care that are perceived negatively by women should be changed. Nurses have to avoid situations that will prolong the time of brachytherapy treatment. Nurses should support women in using coping strategies that assist them in getting through the brachytherapy treatment.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".