MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Identifying the education, information and support needs of Canadians diagnosed with breast cancer: A Canadian Breast Cancer Network (CBCN) assessment project.

2023· article· en· W4379330247 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cathy Ammendolea, Kathleen Dickerson Swiger, Scott J. Richter, Bukun Adegbembo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsCanadian Breast Cancer Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicineFocus groupFamily medicinePopulationInformation needsSocial supportCancerOncologyInternal medicinePsychologyLibrary sciencePsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e13088 Background: Assessing the education, information and support needs of Canadians diagnosed with breast cancer involves categorizing and tailoring topics and methods of delivery but, most importantly, it must be rooted in an understating of the patient. In 2022, CBCN initiated a project to identify the needs of the Canadian breast cancer population and develop tailored, focused programs and materials. Methods: CBCN conducted a series of 45-minute key informant interviews (7) with patients and oncologists to determine needs, gaps, programs and materials. Five 90-minute patient focus groups (32 participants) were conducted to enhance the interviews. One group was specifically for metastatic patients. Findings from the interviews and focus groups were used to inform the questions for a survey which was fielded online May1/June 10, 2022. The data analysis began in September 2022 and is on-going. Results: A review of Canadian triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients’ responses (n=185 or 18.9% of respondents) showed that only 29.4% had heard the term TNBC before. When asked about educational resources on clinical, practical and support topics TNBC patients preferred them tailored to their breast cancer type (94.3%). TNBC patients reported difficulty locating resources (74.0%) and rated those available satisfactory to poor (44.6%). Sources included websites, social media and printed materials. Specific topics of interest were new treatments and latest research (66.2%), fear of recurrence (63.1%), prevention of illness after breast cancer (60.1%) and long term effects of treatment (57.4%). Conclusions: Public awareness of the types of breast cancer could promote a better understanding of the nature of the disease. Availability of multiple communication channels provides opportunities to disseminate and update resources and deliver them to the patients and providers. While information exists, identifying and increasing the availability of credible, reliable resources tailored to specific types of breast cancer that are easily accessible to both patients and clinicians could enhance the physician-patient dialogue, potentially improve adherence, promote trust and possibly contribute to improved outcomes.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.482
Teacher spread0.366 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→