Health system strengthening: Integration of breast cancer care for improved outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The adoption of the goal of universal health coverage and the growing burden of cancer in low- and middle-income countries makes it important to consider how to provide cancer care. Specific interventions can strengthen health systems while providing cancer care within a resource-stratified perspective (similar to the World Health Organization-tiered approach). Four specific topics are discussed: essential medicines/essential diagnostics lists; national cancer plans; provision of affordable essential public services (either at no cost to users or through national health insurance); and finally, how a nascent breast cancer program can build on existing programs. A case study of Zambia (a country with a core level of resources for cancer care, using the Breast Health Global Initiative typology) shows how a breast cancer program was built on a cervical cancer program, which in turn had evolved from the HIV/AIDS program. A case study of Brazil (which has enhanced resources for cancer care) describes how access to breast cancer care evolved as universal health coverage expanded. A case study of Uruguay shows how breast cancer outcomes improved as the country shifted from a largely private system to a single-payer national health insurance system in the transition to becoming a country with maximal resources for cancer care. The final case study describes an exciting initiative, the City Cancer Challenge, and how that may lead to improved cancer services.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".