MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2916407071 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v9n6p23

The transitional experience of women with newly diagnosed breast cancer

2019· article· en· W2916407071 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ingrid Villadsen Kristensen, Bodil Rasmussen, Patricia M. Livingston, Anette Meldgaard, Ida Zerlang, Mikael Birkelund Jensen‐Johansen, Jette Henriksen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineCancerOncologyPolitical scienceGynecologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the study was to provide insights into the transitional experience of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer progressing to their primary treatment. The psychosocial impact of patients in the recovery phase after breast cancer treatment has been investigated in recent years, however, little is known about the transition experience and psychosocial needs of Danish breast cancer patients during the phase of transition from diagnosis to treatment. This study employed a qualitative descriptive design with data collection including 12 semi-structured interviews with women undergoing radiation-or chemotherapy treatment. The transcribed interviews were analysed which identified five main themes; 1) Uncertainty, 2) Sense of powerlessness, 3) Sustaining normality, 4) Worrying about the future, 5) Fortunate only having radiotherapy. Understanding care needs of women in transition, from diagnosis to treatment, and how it impacts on their lives, is essential to enable health professionals to tailor individualized care. Early support is critical to ensure that women understand step-by-step what is involved in the treatment and care and thereby to assist them towards a positive psychosocial trajectory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nursing Education and PracticeSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207