MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4323050047 · doi:10.1007/s00520-023-07658-x

Informing interventions to improve uptake of adjuvant endocrine therapy in women with breast cancer: a theoretical-based examination of modifiable influences on non-adherence

2023· article· en· W4323050047 on OpenAlexaff
Caitríona Cahir, Kathleen Bennett, Stephan U Dombrowski, Catherine M. Kelly, Mary Wells, Eila Watson, Linda Sharp

Bibliographic record

VenueSupportive Care in Cancer · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMedication Adherence and Compliance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchProgramme Grants for Applied ResearchIrish Research eLibraryDepartment of Health and Social CareRoyal College of Surgeons in Ireland
KeywordsStructural equation modelingBreast cancerMedicinePsychological interventionIntrusivenessPsychosocialClinical psychologyTest (biology)Intervention (counseling)CancerDevelopmental psychologyPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose To inform intervention development, we measured the modifiable determinants of endocrine therapy (ET) non-adherence in women with breast cancer, using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and examined inter-relationships between these determinants and non-adherence using the Perceptions and Practicalities Approach (PAPA). Methods Women with stages I–III breast cancer prescribed ET were identified from the National Cancer Registry Ireland (N = 2423) and invited to complete a questionnaire. A theoretically based model of non-adherence was developed using PAPA to examine inter-relationships between the 14 TDF domains of behaviour change and self-reported non-adherence. Structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to test the model. Results A total of 1606 women participated (response rate = 66%) of whom 395 (25%) were non-adherent. The final SEM with three mediating latent variables (LVs) (PAPA Perceptions: TDF domains, Beliefs about Capabilities,Beliefs about Consequences; PAPA Practicalities: TDF domain, Memory, Attention,Decision Processes and Environment) and four independent LVs (PAPA Perceptions: Illness intrusiveness; PAPA Practicalities: TDF domains, Knowledge,Behaviour Regulation; PAPA External Factors: TDF domain, Social Identity) explained 59% of the variance in non-adherence and had an acceptable fit (χ2(334) = 1002, p < 0.001; RMSEA = 0.03; CFI = 0.96 and SRMR = 0.07) Knowledge had a significant mediating effect on non-adherence through Beliefs about Consequences and Beliefs about Capabilities. Illness intrusiveness had a significant mediating effect on non-adherence through Beliefs about Consequences. Beliefsabout Consequences had a significant mediating effect on non-adherence through Memory, Attention, Decision Processesg and Environment. Conclusions By underpinning future interventions, this model has the potential to improve ET adherence and, hence, reduce recurrence and improve survival in breast cancer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSupportive Care in CancerSame topicMedication Adherence and ComplianceFrench-language works237,207