An Analysis of Health Care Team Communication Needs Among Younger vs Older Breast Cancer Survivors: Web-Based Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prior studies indicate that the age of onset of breast cancer is an important element in considering communication between patients and the health care team. Younger women aged 45 and under diagnosed with breast cancer are often at a higher risk of being more vulnerable to psychosocial issues compared to older women aged 46 years and above. Few studies have examined age differences in patient perceptions of treatment-related discussion and communication during transition with their health care team. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this survey were (1) to better understand breast cancer survivors' perspectives regarding communication with health care providers during treatment and during transition to posttreatment care; and (2) to determine the differences between younger women with breast cancer (≤45 years of age) and older women (≥46 years of age). It was hypothesized that (1) breast cancer survivors' psychosocial and finance-related communications with health care providers may lack effectiveness; (2) younger women experience greater needs for patient-centered communication with physicians and health care providers, especially about psychosocial care and transition to posttreatment care; and (3) younger breast cancer patients (≤45 years of age) need more information on survivorship and follow-up care. METHODS: An internet-based survey was conducted with 143 women in Central Texas with 35% (n=50) aged 45 years or under and 65% (n=93) aged 46 years and above. The Mann-Whitney U test was performed to assess differences in participants' perceptions about communication with health care providers by age group: younger (≤45 years of age) and older (≥46 years of age) women. RESULTS: Statistically significant results pertained to rating health care team and patient discussions about transition from treatment to posttreatment using scores of 0 as "no discussion" and 100 as "in-depth discussion." For the questions about management of posttreatment care, the overall mean score of the groups was 56.26 and that of the younger group was 43.96; the mean score of the older group was 61.96 (P=.02). For the question about the timing of follow-up appointments, the overall mean score was 64.29; the mean score of the younger group was 54.44, and that of the older group was 68.88 (P=.05). All the group scores related to psychosocial and financial support discussions with health care providers were low, with a rollup average of only 30.02 out of 100, suggesting that this is an important area for improving patient-centered communication. CONCLUSIONS: For all patients, transition from treatment to posttreatment requires a greater level of engagement and communication with the health care team. It appears that younger patients aged ≤45 years require more in-depth and personalized messaging to better understand their posttreatment care requirements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".