Effectiveness and meaningfulness of breast cancer survivorship and peer support for improving the quality of life of immigrant women: A mixed methods systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective The objective of this review is to assess the effectiveness and meaningfulness of breast cancer peer survivorship and support group in improving the quality of life of immigrant adults. Introduction Immigrant women use fewer follow-up and peer support services following treatment for breast cancer than people who have not recently immigrated to a new country. Review questions This JBI convergent segregated approach to a mixed methods systematic review will address the following review questions. What is the impact of survivorship and peer support groups on improving the quality of life for immigrant women survivors? What is the impact of acculturated interventions for breast cancer survivors to improve quality of life? Inclusion criteria The inclusion criteria include immigrant women who have completed their initial course of breast cancer treatment. The exclusion criteria include non-immigrant - women and men (above 18 years) who are not diagnosed with breast cancer, or currently undergoing active or advanced treatment, or end of life care. Methods The proposed systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for mixed methods systematic reviews. The search strategy will include qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research reports published in academic journals and a grey literature search for unpublished research reports. A mixed method integrated approach to synthesis and integration will be used. Findings of method synthesis will be configured according to JBI methodology convergent segregated mixed methods systematic review. Systematic review registration number Registration of title in PROSPERO 2020: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/#loginpage.
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 | 0.125 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.069 | 0.009 |
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".