Examining the quality of life of patients living with breast cancer in Southern Sri Lanka: A descriptive cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Globally breast cancer (BC) is the most common cancer among women and Sri Lanka is not an exception. Cancer influences the quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients. The survival rates and the QoL of BC patients have improved significantly over the last few decades. However, factors associated with the QoL of patients with BC have not been well studied in Sri Lanka. The aim of the study was to assess the QoL and its correlates among patients with BC treated at a tertiary care hospital in Southern Sri Lanka. Methods: Ninety-seven BC patients were investigated using an interviewer-administered questionnaire. The World Health Organization- Quality of Life- Brief (WHOQOL-BREF) was used to measure QoL. The WHOQOL-BREF measure QoL in four domains: physical, psychological, social, and environmental. Scores range from 0 to 100, and higher scores indicate a greater QoL. Results: The mean age of the sample subjects was 52 years (SD = 8.7), and the majority were married (78%). Physical (60.97±11.56), psychological (63.52±11.63), and environmental (69.05 ±8.79) domains of QoL were at a satisfactory level whereas QoL score related to social relationships was found to be low (47.86±13.89) in this sample. Physical QoL was higher in young participants and psychological QoL was higher among those with a fewer number of comorbidities and disabilities and those with no body image changes. Social QoL was higher among married and environmental QoL was higher among those who reported having no disabilities. Conclusion: Social support in the form of family support and emotional support seems to play a major role in lowering the QoL of BC patients. Psycho-social support services should target patients experiencing physical disabilities, a higher number of comorbidities, and those who were subjected to changes in their body image.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".