The standardised cancer booklet and beyond: Patient perspectives on patient education for breast cancer care
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
Objective: This qualitative study engaged with breast cancer patients to create a standardised cancer education booklet. This paper identifies lessons from that engagement process, showing how patients experienced their cancer education and how they were able to ensure their concerns and priorities were included in the standardised patient education booklet. Method: In semi-structured focus groups and interviews, patients reviewed the print materials they had received and a draft standardised booklet. Discussions were then analysed thematically through comparison and interpretive coding. Results: Patient education needs to provide key information on breast cancer and its treatment while also providing the kind of educational support that can strengthen patient capacity to take decisions, feel a sense of control, and move through the journey with optimism and courage. Conclusion: Patient education, including standardised materials, can reflect patient autonomy and empowerment if patients are engaged in developing educational materials in a broad, inclusive and sustained way.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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