Exploring adherence to daytime compression in women with breast cancer related lymphedema: a multi-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: The objective of this follow-up study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to use of daytime compression among women with breast cancer related lymphedema who previously took part in a trial examining the efficacy of night compression. Methods:We used a multi-methods approach involving a survey and subsequent focus group sessions.The survey questions were developed based on clinical experience and findings from the literature.Questions were framed to align with the Theoretical Domains Framework.For the focus group data, we applied an interpretive description qualitative methodology to understand participants' experiences and views on use of daytime compression.Qualitative findings were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework.Results: Questionnaires were completed by 48 of 52 participants.Only 15 participants (31%) reported adhering to wearing the garment for greater than 12 h each day.Better adherence was positively associated with perceived control of lymphedema (r = 0.304; 95%CI: 0.051-0.564; P = 0.021).Survey findings suggest that participants have good knowledge about the rationale for, and the benefits of, wearing the compression sleeve.Twentythree survey respondents took part in one of the five subsequent focus group sessions.Five key themes were identified representing the primary barriers to regular use of daytime compression: discomfort, negative emotions, interference with function, social situations and visibility, and use of alternative management strategies. Conclusion:The findings suggest less than optimal adherence to daytime compression sleeve use.Further research is needed to explore the relative benefit of daytime compression, optimal wear times, and implementable strategies to improve adherence.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".