The psychosocial experiences of women with breast cancer across the lifespan: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarize the psychosocial experience of women with breast cancer from a lifespan perspective by examining the findings of qualitative studies. METHODS: A meta-aggregate review of 24 qualitative studies was undertaken. To be included, studies must include women with a breast cancer diagnosis and focus on younger or older women (as defined by the study), or compare a psychosocial issue across the lifespan. Eight databases were searched systematically. RESULTS: Study participants ranged in age from 26 to 91 years. Sixteen studies focused on younger women, six focused on older women, and two included women across the lifespan. A total of 155 findings were extracted from the studies and were aggregated into 11 categories. These were synthesized into four synthesized findings: (a) dealing with cancer, (b) the importance of caring, (c) the aftermath of cancer, and (d) fertility and infertility. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is required to explore these findings, and to examine the needs of older women in particular. Delineating the similarities and differences in the needs of women across the lifespan will inform the development of psychosocial interventions for all women with breast cancer.
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 | 0.007 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".