The experiences of Indigenous people with cancer in Saskatchewan: a patient-oriented qualitative study using a sharing circle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although disparities in cancer rates, later diagnoses and lower survival rates between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people have been documented, little is known about how Indigenous patients with cancer encounter the health care system. We explored perceptions and experiences of Indigenous patients with cancer and their families to understand better how 2 key concepts - trust and world view - influence cancer care decisions. METHODS: In this patient-oriented study that included participation of 2 patient partners, qualitative data were collected from Indigenous patients with cancer and their families using an Indigenous method of sharing circles. The sharing circle occurred at a culturally appropriate place, Wanuskewin Heritage Park, Saskatoon, on Sept. 22, 2017. The first patient partner started the sharing circle by sharing their cancer journey, thus engaging the Indigenous methodology of storytelling. This patient partner was involved in selecting the data collection method and recruiting participants through snowballing and social media. Trust and world view were employed as meta themes to guide our examination of the data. In keeping with Indigenous methodology, interview transcripts were analyzed using narrative analysis. The themes were reviewed and verified by a second Indigenous patient partner. RESULTS: There were 14 participants in the sharing circle. The 2 meta themes, trust and world view, comprised 8 subthemes. The meta theme trust included mistrust with diagnosis and Western treatment after cancer therapy, protection of Indigenous medicine and physician expertise with treatment recommendations. The world view meta theme included the following subthemes: best of both worlds, spiritual beliefs, required to be strong for family and importance of knowing Indigenous survivors. INTERPRETATION: This study displayed complex relations between trust and world view in the cancer journeys of Indigenous patients and their families. These findings may assist health care providers in gaining a better understanding of how trust and world view affect the decision-making of Indigenous patients regarding cancer care.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".