Body image interventions within breast cancer care: A systematic review and concept analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There needs to be a consensus regarding the definition of body image in oncology the literature. This lack of agreement leads to conflicting results in psychosocial interventions aimed to improve body image among breast cancer patients. Through an instrumentalist approach, this systematic review aims to analyze how body image as a concept is described and operationalized in breast cancer studies with the focus to enhance body image through psychosocial interventions. Databases were searched in October 2022 and updated in February 2023 to find empirical studies reporting psychosocial intervention targeting body image efficacy. The results from 24 studies show many similarities and differences between the definitions (e.g. characteristics) and questionnaires (e.g. Cronbach's alpha coefficient) used to evaluate this concept. Most definitions include thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to body image. Finally, the psychosocial implications are discussed. This systematic review is registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42022326393).
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".