“All about the value?” Decisional needs of breast reconstruction for breast cancer patients in the Chinese context: A mixed-methods study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To explore breast cancer (BC) patients' participation in breast reconstruction (BR) decision-making and specific decisional needs, especially the manifestations and causes of decisional conflicts, in China. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was conducted using triangulation of data from interviews and a questionnaire survey with health care professionals (HCPs) and BC patients with BR decision-making experience at 5 Beijing centers. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework guided (ODSF) the qualitative and quantitative data analyses. RESULTS: A total of 82.53% of Chinese BC patients would consider BR. Seven themes captured patients' BR decisional needs per the ODSF: inadequate support/resources (100%, 58.82%) and knowledge (75%, 52.94%) were most frequently cited. Health beliefs (unclear values) reflected Chinese characteristics. Patients had inadequate knowledge (M=19.99/50, SD=8.67) but positive BR attitudes (M=59.48/95, SD=10.45). CONCLUSIONS: BR decisions for Chinese BC patients are complex and often accompanied by decisional conflicts. Inadequate knowledge and inadequate support and resources contribute to these conflicts, emphasizing the need for culturally tailored information and support to promote SDM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: HCPs need specialized training in SDM to guide patients in decision-making. It is essential to provide relevant resources and support that are culturally and clinically appropriate for Chinese 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 | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".