MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breast cancer survivors' self-reported outcomes following an end of treatment group intervention.

2018· article· en· W2805859670 on OpenAlexaff
Geneviève Chaput, Maria Barrette, Vanessa DiLalla, Tristan Williams, Olivia B. Yu, AndreAnne Robitaille

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivorship curveMedicinePsychological interventionFeelingFamily medicineDescriptive statisticsPatient satisfactionGerontologyCancerPhysical therapyNursingPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

18 Background: The merit of supporting and educating breast cancer survivors (BCS) about survivorship issues such as cognitive dysfunction, body image concerns and fear of recurrence following treatment completion is well recognized. Though the majority of BCS appear to adjust fairly well in the long term, the transition from active treatments to survivorship is often described as distressing. While individualized interventions are typically not sustainable, group interventions provide an opportunity to inform BCS about potential late and long-term effects from cancer treatments in a supportive environment. BCS were offered an end of treatment educational group intervention (EOT). The EOT consists of a survivorship education session delivered by an MD and RN, a kit containing patient resources, as well as a survivorship care plan (SCP). BCS caregivers are welcomed to attend the EOT. This study aimed to assess BCS’ satisfaction, confidence level in managing their health, and intent to use the information received at the EOT. Methods: 18 EOTs have been provided to 83 BCS (group size range: 4 to 8 BCS, caregiver attendees not included). Participants completed a brief Likert-scale survey on a voluntary basis after the EOT. Variables of interest for included reported satisfaction, confidence and intent to use information received during the EOT. Descriptive statistics were utilized to analyze collected data. Results: Completed surveys were received from 69 participants (response rate 83.1%). To the survey question: “The survivorship information I received was helpful”, 72% (50) and 26% (18) responded strongly agreed and agreed, respectively. The majority of participants reported “Feeling better prepared for the next steps regarding their care” following the EOT (60% (42) strongly agreed; 33% (23) agreed). Lastly, the majority (78%) stated they were “very likely” to use the EOT information. Conclusions: Current evidence has demonstrated the feasibility and patient-related benefits of educational interventions within the field of survivorship. Our results suggest group-based interventions are efficient and effective for addressing the supportive and informational needs of BCS after treatment completion.

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.393 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207