Traditional support groups for women with breast cancer: A review of the literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objective: Breast cancer is the most common cancer among women worldwide and it is by far the most common cancer of women in Qatar. Nurses can play an important role in developing and implementing support groups for women with breast cancer. The main objective of this literature review was to identify the context of information to develop a support group to meet the needs of women with breast cancer in Qatar.Methods: The following databases were searched: Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO. After applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 25 studies were retained for this review. Results: The synthesis and integration of the literature revealed that traditional support groups can impact women with breast cancer across the physical, psychological, spiritual, and social domains. Various outcomes such as fatigue and anxiety were measured and several different types of interventions were used such as education, relaxation, and goal setting. Overall, the interventions had a positive impact on some of the outcomes.Conclusions: This review highlights the need to develop and implement a support group program for women with breast cancer in Qatar.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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".