MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2960706876 · doi:10.5737/23688076293170176

Supportive care experiences of rural women living with breast cancer: An interpretive descriptive qualitative study

2019· article· en· W2960706876 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joanne Loughery, Roberta L. Woodgate

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCARE CanadaRed River College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQualitative researchBreast cancerNursingMedicineDescriptive researchRural areaHealth carePsychologyCancerSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer is the leading cause of female cancer in Canada. However, there is limited research on the health and supportive needs of rural women living with this illness. The purpose of this qualitative study was to arrive at an increased understanding of the supportive care experiences of rural women requiring treatment for invasive breast cancer who reside in rural Manitoba. To explore this phenomenon, an interpretive descriptive qualitative study was completed. Twenty women from four regional health authorities participated in the study. Data were collected using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews and analyzed by content analysis through an interpretative qualitative lens. The findings presented emphasize a holistic overview of the experiences of women living with breast cancer that captured both the positive aspects of living rurally and the described rural challenges. Pragmatic recommendations have been generated from the study findings that have implications for nursing practice and service delivery.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.367 · 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.

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207