MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997272332 · doi:10.1186/s41687-019-0167-5

Expectations of breast-conserving therapy: a qualitative study

2019· article· en· W2997272332 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Fuzesi, Karima Becetti, Anne F. Klassen, Mary L. Gemignani, Andrea L. Pusic

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Patient-Reported Outcomes · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Cancer InstituteWeill Cornell Medical CollegeAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Institutes of HealthMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
KeywordsLumpectomyBreast cancerQualitative researchMedicineGrounded theoryQuality of life (healthcare)MastectomyInformed consentFamily medicineHealth careCancerNursingAlternative medicineInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Early-stage breast cancer is often treated with breast-conserving therapy (BCT), including lumpectomy with radiation therapy. Patients' expectations of BCT remain largely unknown. Expectations affect perceptions of treatment-related experiences and health-related quality of life (HR-QOL) outcomes. Our primary aim was to describe expectations of BCT among patients with early breast cancer through qualitative methods. Our secondary aim was to inform preoperative patient education and improve the patient experience through knowledge. METHODS: We used a grounded-theory approach to investigate a convenience sample of 22 women with stage I and II breast cancer who were treated with BCT at a single hospital in New York City between May and August 2016. Semi-structured interviews were conducted in person and by telephone. Open-ended questions covered participants' expectations of treatment experiences and outcomes. Data was analyzed in a line-by-line approach to identify emergent themes related to patient expectations. Interviews continued until no new themes emerged. RESULTS: Analysis of data identified the following themes related to patient expectations of BCT: experience of cancer care, recovery, appearance, and HR-QOL. Despite preoperative informed consent and teaching, participants expressed few expectations preoperatively, owing to a lack of knowledge about the process of care. Lack of expectations preoperatively was compensated with available care and resources postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients in our sample had a surprisingly limited understanding of what to expect during treatment with BCT. Despite available information and preoperative teaching, patients have a clear knowledge gap regarding BCT. These findings suggest patients often undergo cancer treatment with trust rather than complete understanding of the process. This data may be used to enhance preoperative discussions aimed at preparing patients for surgery and treatment.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Patient-Reported OutcomesSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207