Perception of Survivorship Needs Among Breast Cancer Patients in Trinidad and Tobago
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The perception of survivorship among the cancer communities of the Caribbean is largely unknown. This study focused on determining the perception and interest in cancer survivorship among breast cancer (BC) patients in Trinidad and Tobago, as a preliminary, to introducing a pilot survivorship program and evaluating its impact on this patient population. Participants were given a questionnaire to determine needs, expectations and interest in survivorship care. Baseline measurable outcomes reported in this article include the following: 1. Participants' satisfaction with their medical care follow-up plan (if any), 2. Participants' satisfaction with the amount of information provided by healthcare providers, and 3. Participants' satisfaction with their physician's overall concern about their well-being, ranked on a 5-point Likert scale. Participants also reported on the advice/ guidelines provided by their physicians, after surgery and/or on completion of treatment, what they did to cope with BC, and their expectations of what could have been done to improve the quality of care received. A second questionnaire was then used to measure the level of interest in participating in a Cancer Survivorship Program (CSP) with components such as: nutrition, psychosocial development, spiritual well-being, and yoga and mindfulness. The level of interest was ranked by participants on a 5-point Likert scale. Fifteen themes emerged from participants' responses to the first questionnaire. Nutrition stood out as the module of highest interest, followed by psychosocial development among BC patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".