Older women’s experience with breast cancer treatment: A systematic review of qualitative literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The experience of older women during breast cancer treatment is insufficiently described by quantitative studies. This study aimed to systematically review qualitative data describing factors that influence older women's (≥65 years old) experience with breast cancer treatment. METHODS: A systematic review was performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols (PRISMA) principles. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched (inception - 2020). Quality assessment of essential item reporting was performed using the Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research (SRQR) criteria. Common ideas were coded, thematically organized, and synthesized within a theoretical framework. RESULTS: Of 7,773 studies identified, twelve were included. The median SRQR score was 13.4 (range 11.3-15.9) (maximum score: 21). Data synthesis revealed that older women experienced breast cancer as a journey with challenges during each phase. During diagnosis, they delayed seeking medical help despite symptoms. Age and experience gave them perspective on the impact of their diagnosis. During decision-making, preconceptions and personal values determined choices. In the treatment phase, women experienced medical and social barriers to care. During the post-treatment phase, many experienced treatment adverse effects, but could move on or compartmentalize as coping mechanisms. CONCLUSION: Older women with breast cancer have unique challenges specific to each phase of their treatment journey. Older women may benefit from proactive treatment discussions with health care providers to address their specific needs, individualize care, and assist with cancer care navigation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".