Barriers of Access to Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this systematic review was to comprehensively summarize barriers of access to breast reconstruction and evaluate access using the Penchansky and Thomas conceptual framework based on the six dimensions of access to care. METHODS: The authors performed a systematic review that focused on (1) breast reconstruction, (2) barriers, and (3) breast cancer. Eight databases (i.e., EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINHAL, ePub MEDLINE, ProQuest, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) were searched. English peer-reviewed articles published between 1996 and 2016 were included. RESULTS: The authors' search retrieved 4282 unique articles. Two independent reviewers screened texts, selecting 99 articles for inclusion. All studies were observational and qualitative in nature. The availability of breast reconstruction was highest in teaching hospitals, private hospitals, and national cancer institutions. Accessibility affected access, with lower likelihood of breast reconstruction in rural geographic locations. Affordability also impacted access; high costs of the procedure or poor reimbursement by insurance companies negatively influenced access to breast reconstruction. Acceptability of the procedure was not universal, with unfavorable physician attitudes toward breast reconstruction and specific patient and tumor characteristics correlating with lower rates of breast reconstruction. Lastly, lack of patient awareness of breast reconstruction reduced the receipt of breast reconstruction. CONCLUSIONS: Using the access-to-care framework by Penchansky and Thomas, the authors found that barriers to breast reconstruction existed in all six domains and interplayed at many levels. The authors' systematic review analyzed this complex relationship and suggested multiprong interventions aimed at targeting breast reconstruction barriers, with the goal of promoting equitable access to breast reconstruction for all breast cancer patients.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it