MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2419032026 · doi:10.19082/1575

Coping response following a diagnosis of breast cancer: A systematic review

2015· review· en· W2419032026 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueElectronic physician · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerPsycINFOCoping (psychology)Clinical psychologyAvoidance copingMedicineDiseaseScopusObservational studyPsychologyMEDLINECancerPathologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it