Experiences and perspectives of ethnocultural breast cancer survivors in the interior region of British Columbia: A descriptive cross-sectional approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in Canadian ethnocultural survivors. There is little information on the psychosocial impact of experiences and perspectives among ethnocultural survivors. Objective The purpose of this study was to examine the experiences and perspectives of ethnocultural breast cancer survivors in the interior region of British Columbia. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional approach was used. A research ethics board approval was obtained. A purposive sample of 115 ethnocultural breast cancer survivors was recruited in the interior region from August 2020 to March 2021. Written and verbal consent was obtained from the participants who completed a survey questionnaire. Results Patient engagement in care and total satisfaction scores were significantly associated with younger age, higher schooling, living a marital life, being employed, having extended health benefits, having a family history of breast cancer, decreased number of years with the first breast cancer diagnosis, and lesser severity of symptom distress. Participants of a younger age expressed receiving better consultation and advice from health care practitioners for cancer treatment-related distress, building patient-physician communication, relationship and trust. Conclusion A deeper understanding the cancer-related experiences of ethnocultural breast cancer survivors lies in its importance of integrating return to work, health benefits and extended insurance policies within the framework of cancer supportive care. This research lays a foundation for future work to develop specific supportive care interventions that reduce psychosocial distress, improve work productivity and longevity leading to better quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".