Disparities in the survivorship experience among Latina survivors of breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The authors investigated disparities in the survivorship experience among Latinas with breast cancer (BC) in comparison with non-Latinas. METHODS: A cross-sectional bilingual telephone survey was conducted among 212 Latina and non-Latina women within 10 to 24 months after a diagnosis of BC (AJCC TNM staging system stage 0-III) at 2 Los Angeles County public hospitals. Data were collected using the Preparing for Life as a (New) Survivor (PLANS) scale, Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions Questionnaire (PEPPI), Breast Cancer Prevention Trial (BCPT) Symptom Checklist, Satisfaction with Care and Information Scale, Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) tool, Charlson Comorbidity Index adapted for patient self-report, and the 12-item Short Form Health Survey. Controlling variables included age, stage as determined by the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) TNM staging system, educational level, and study site in multivariate analyses. RESULTS: The mean ages of Latinas and non-Latinas were 51.5 years and 56.6 years, respectively. Compared with non-Latinas, Latinas reported less BC survivorship knowledge (27.3 vs 30.7; P<.0001), were more dissatisfied with BC care information (2.3 vs 3.4; P<.0001), reported lower PEPPI scores (38.2 vs 42.2; P = .03), and experienced more BCPT symptoms (6.4 vs 5.0; P = .04). No differences were noted regarding their confidence in survivorship care preparedness (42.7 vs 41; P = .191), satisfaction with BC survivorship care (9.6 vs 8.8; P = .298), or their discussion with physicians (9.6 vs 8.1; P = .07). These ethnic group differences persisted in multivariate analyses, with the exception of PEPPI. CONCLUSIONS: Latina survivors of BC experienced disparities in BC knowledge and satisfaction with information received, but believed themselves to be prepared for survivorship and were as satisfied with providers, care received, and discussions with physicians as non-Latinas. Cancer 2018;124:2373-80. © 2018 American Cancer Society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".