MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining social media peer support and improving psychosocial outcomes for young women with breast cancer.

2021· article· en· W3199856239 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alison Hunter-Smith, Colleen Cuthbert, Karen Fergus, Lisa Barbera, Yvonne Chuka Efegoma, Doris Howell, Susan Isherwood, Nathalie LeVasseur, Adena Scheer, Christine Simmons, Amirrtha Srikanthan, Claire Temple‐Oberle, Yuan Xu, Kelly Metcalfe, May Lynn Quan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of OttawaBC Cancer AgencyOttawa HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreHealth Sciences CentreYork UniversitySunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicineBreast cancerSurvivorship curveSocial supportPeer supportFeelingQualitative researchSnowball samplingFamily medicineSocial mediaCoping (psychology)GerontologyCancerClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychologyPsychotherapistSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

162 Background: Young women with breast cancer (YWBC) have unique survivorship needs due to life stage at point of diagnosis. Peer support sought by YWBC through social media channels appears to be rising. We aimed to understand the unmet needs of YWBC in order to develop a tailored peer support program to improve young women’s breast cancer experience and ultimately reduce psychosocial morbidity long-term. Methods: Using qualitative inquiry, we conducted semi-structured interviews with YWBC survivors and clinicians using purposive sampling. Inclusion criteria were women aged 40 years or younger at diagnosis, stage 0-IV disease. Survivors were minimum one year post-diagnosis and with active treatment complete. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim and data was analyzed using Thorne’s Interpretive Description. Themes were reviewed with study team throughout data analysis. Results: Thirty-six participants were interviewed from ten centers across seven Canadian provinces; mean age 36 years. Participant reported demographics:18% ‘visible minority’, 9% ‘born outside Canada’, 7% ‘Indigenous’ and 54% of patients’ household income at or below Canadian average. At point of diagnosis 69% married, 44% had children and 9% pregnant or postpartum. Themes from YWBC interviewed focused on coping needs: feeling alone, misunderstood by professionals and misplaced among peers. Participants described all-age peer support groups risked triggering anxieties, lacked convenience and were comprised of women at later life stages with differing needs. YWBC reported lack of young age breast cancer-specific peer support. YWBC frequently found support through social media de novo, by following young-age breast cancer survivor pages, blogs and forums as well as virtual support groups. YWBC also report benefit from identifying similar life and cancer stage survivors globally and forming individual relations virtually, through direct messaging. Additionally, benefits described from age-specific social media support included unique shared experience and understanding, hope from positive outcomes of similar life stage diagnoses, and increased confidence and healthcare navigation for YWBC. Women unanimously requested one on one peer support program development - a survivor mentorship scheme specifically for YWBC that would provide the convenience of online support without the obligations or emotionally overwhelming nature of structured support groups. Conclusions: We have identified unique support needs from this young cohort of women that are not currently being met within standard Canadian healthcare pathways. We aim to develop a novel one on one peer support program for YWBC, to optimize psychosocial support and improve young women’s empowerment and autonomy in managing the effects of cancer long-term.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.330
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.135
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207