Coping response following a diagnosis of breast cancer: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Coping with breast cancer is an important health issue that results in adjustments to the disease in survivors. The present systematic review aims to synthesize the evidence about the coping strategies used by women who are primary breast cancer survivors to adjust to their new situations in their lives. METHODS: Searches were conducted using Google Scholar, PubMed, Scopus, Wiley Online Library, and PsycINFO, using the terms "breast cancer," "breast malignancy," "coping strategies," "coping behaviors," and "adjustment" from January 2000 to July 2015. Only relevant studies in English were selected at the end of the search. Only those papers were selected that focused on coping strategies/behaviors that were used by breast cancer survivors. RESULTS: Searching the electronic databases resulted in 2390 articles. Ultimately, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria of the present study and were included in the review. Two reviewers independently reviewed all relevant articles using the same inclusion criteria. The reviewers completed a quality assessment using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment scales for observational studies. The more frequent coping strategies that patients with breast cancer used in the studies were 1) seeking social support (9 studies), 2) positive reframing and reappraisal behaviors as problem focused strategies (7 studies), 3) religious/spirituality-focused efforts (8 studies), 4) emotional expression as positive emotion-focused strategies (3 studies), and 5) avoidance and distraction as avoidance orientated strategies (6 studies). Women with different ethnicities and educational levels used different coping strategies with breast cancer, and they used different strategies in different phases of the disease. CONCLUSION: This systematic review revealed that seeking social support and emotion-focused efforts were the main coping strategies that women with breast cancer diagnosis used, especially in the early phase of breast cancer diagnosis. This information about the coping responses of patients may be useful in designing interventional programs to assist other women in dealing with the various challenges imposed upon them by their illness.
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 | 0.009 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".