MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2784270184 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v8n6p77

How are health literacy principles incorporated into breast cancer chemotherapy education? A review of the literature

2018· review· en· W2784270184 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pearman D. Parker, Sue P. Heiney, Daniela B. Friedman, Tisha M. Felder, Robin M. Dawson, Eboni Herbert Harris, Swann Arp Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Literacy and Information Accessibility
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteSusan G. Komen
KeywordsCINAHLPsycINFOBreast cancerMedicineCochrane LibraryHealth literacyNauseaMEDLINEVomitingLiteracyChemotherapyCancerFamily medicineIntensive care medicineOncologyHealth careNursingInternal medicineMeta-analysisPsychologyPsychological interventionPedagogyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy is commonly used in combination with other treatments for breast cancer. However, low adherence to chemotherapy is a growing concern, particularly among breast cancer patients. Side effects such as nausea and vomiting, fatigue, and arthralgia can contribute to reduced adherence. Other factors such as provider communication and limited insurance coverage can affect adherence. Studies have shown that as much as 28% of patients with breast cancer did not continue with their prescribed dose of chemotherapy. Research suggests that chemotherapy education materials can be critical to addressing problems with non-adherence, and may include written materials, verbal instruction, and multimedia programs. Despite this wide variety, the effectiveness and benefit of chemotherapy education hinges on the patients' health literacy. Breast cancer patients with low health literacy may be unclear about chemotherapy or face difficulty adhering to treatment if they do not understand the information provided to them. Thus, this scoping review summarizes the existing research on how health literacy principles are incorporated into breast cancer chemotherapy education materials. METHODS: Using a combination of keywords (e.g. chemotherapy, education) and Medical subject headings (MeSH) terms (e.g., drug therapy, antineoplastic agents), we searched five databases (1977-2017): CINAHL, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science. RESULTS: Eight of 4,624 articles met the inclusion criteria. Five articles incorporated health literacy principles (e.g., plain language, maintaining an active voice, using white space) into the development of written materials. Few articles used a theoretical framework to guide education material development (n = 3). Of the three articles that described pilot-testing of educational materials, two used post-tests only and one used a pre/post-test design. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicated that limited research exists regarding the use of health literacy principles in chemotherapy education materials. Much of the development of chemotherapy education is not grounded in theory and the application of health literacy principles is limited. Implementing health literacy principles may improve overall comprehension of education thereby increasing adherence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0120.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.426 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicHealth Literacy and Information AccessibilityFrench-language works237,207