Exploring the dietary choices of Chinese women living with breast cancer in Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore how Chinese Canadian patients with breast cancer make dietary choices and to understand their nutritional information needs in order to inform oncology healthcare providers about provision of optimal supportive care for this population. METHODS: Using interpretive description methodology, semi-structured interviews were conducted with first- and second-generation Chinese Canadian women aged 41-73 years living in Vancouver, Canada, who were diagnosed with breast cancer within the last 5 years. A follow-up focus group was held to validate emergent themes. RESULTS: Nineteen women were interviewed; 6 participated in the focus group. Their accounts of dietary experiences following diagnosis focused on three areas: dietary change (including desired and implemented changes that participants believed would benefit their health), facilitators and barriers to dietary change, and information and resource needs. Dietary changes reported included avoiding or consuming greater amounts of certain foods, and taking traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and natural health products. Barriers to desired dietary change included the interplay between food preferences and family and social life, work-life balance, and cost and availability of specialty foods. Support from family members, however, facilitated participants' consumption of more whole and natural foods after their cancer diagnosis. Participants obtained food and nutrition information from a variety of sources but had difficulty determining the reliability and accuracy of information. They requested timely, credible, culturally-relevant, and easily accessible dietary information. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology healthcare providers would benefit from increased understanding of the dietary practices, including TCM, of Chinese women living with breast cancer. To facilitate communication and improve quality of care, healthcare professionals should provide credible and culturally relevant diet-related information in a variety of forms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".