Shared concern with current breast cancer rehabilitation services: a focus group study of survivors’ and professionals’ experiences and preferences for rehabilitation care delivery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer survivors experience a wide spectrum of physical sequelae from cancer treatment. National and international guidelines recommend that rehabilitation is offered from the point of diagnosis. However, there is a lack of data on the translation of these recommendations into clinical care. The objective of this study was to explore the experiences of breast cancer survivors, rehabilitation professionals and breast surgeons on current rehabilitation services including preferences for care delivery, specific ways to promote early detection and timely management of upper body issues and attitudes towards self-managed surveillance and rehabilitation. DESIGN: Qualitative focus groups. Breast cancer survivors completed a questionnaire about rehabilitation services received and experience of upper body issues. These quantitative data were collected to provide context for the qualitative data and increase transferability. Transcripts were analysed using content analysis. SETTING: Five geographically distinct health authorities in British Columbia, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Eleven focus groups were conducted with 35 breast cancer survivors, 29 rehabilitation professionals and 5 breast surgeons. RESULTS: . All breast cancer survivors reported chronic upper body issues (mean 4.5 unique issues). Breast cancer survivors expressed worry and uncertainty in their solo management of the rehabilitation. The current services were reported to not enable early detection and timely management. Suggestions included reorganising the timing of patient education and improving the quality of and access to rehabilitation services by elevating the knowledge among healthcare professionals and providing multimodal self-management resources. CONCLUSIONS: The results revealed a gap between oncology guidelines and the current clinical reality. The rehabilitation services were reported in need of revamping to increase equity of care. Multiple upper body issues were reported by many breast cancer survivors.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".