Title: A systematic review of the psychological concerns of Indian women with breast cancer living in different national contexts: the importance of culturally congruent care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Breast cancer is becoming the most common cancer among women of Indian origin. Little is known about the psychological impact of the disease and its treatment among this population. Aim: To improve understanding of psychological symptoms of Indian women with breast cancer. Design: Systematic literature review and critical interpretative synthesis. Searches (7 May 2019;) used MeSH terms and keywords for breast cancer, psychological symptoms and treatment. Reference lists of included articles were examined. Search results were screened against inclusion criteria, data extracted, quality appraised by two independent researchers, with recourse to a third. Narrative (quantitative) and thematic qualitative syntheses were applied followed by critical interpretative synthesis. Data sources: ProQuest; MEDLINE; Ovid EMBASE; EBSCO; CINAHL; PsycINFO Results: 18/763 studies from India or Canada were included (13 quantitative; 5 qualitative). Critical interpretative synthesis found similar psychological concerns to “Western” women, but were framed by the common culture of Indian women in either country. Family structure, religion and community appears to protect against and cause distress in relation to the expected core roles of wife and mother, and male-dominance in decision-making. Stigma was amplified by poor knowledge about the nature of cancer. Migrant Indian women had additional problems due to language barriers. Conclusions: Indian women with breast cancer living in India and Canada experience psychological morbidities which profoundly affect their role in the family and wider community. Culturally congruent care including accessible communication and information may help prevent and alleviate distressing symptoms whether in India or as part of a migrant community.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".