Women’s occupational performance and quality of life during breast cancer treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To analyse the association between occupational performance and women's health-related quality of life (HRQoL) during breast cancer treatment. METHODS: An analytical cross-sectional study was conducted using the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and its specific breast cancer-specific module (BR-23). The association between occupational performance scores and the HRQoL domains was evaluated using multiple linear regression analysis. RESULTS: The sample included 97 women. Overall, occupational performance was poor and the women's dissatisfaction with their performance resulted in a decrease in HRQoL. Following adjustment, satisfaction was associated with HRQoL in the global health status, functional, role, emotional and social functioning domains of the functional scale. In BR-23, a statistically significant association was found between satisfaction and HRQoL in the functional scale and in the body image domain. CONCLUSIONS: Women's occupational performance was impaired during breast cancer treatment, with limitations and/or restrictions in activities related to self-care, productivity and leisure that were ultimately associated with poorer HRQoL. During cancer treatment, rehabilitation strategies should focus on restoring occupational performance to levels as close as possible to that present prior to the beginning of the disease process, enabling the woman to preserve her occupational life, consequently resulting in an improvement in HRQoL.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".