A qualitative study of perfectionism among self-identified perfectionist women with nonmetastatic breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: Receiving a cancer diagnosis can lead to various psychosocial disturbances. Perfectionism is associated with several psychological problems in the general population, but its role in cancer remains to be assessed. This exploratory qualitative descriptive study aims to examine the role of perfectionism as a vulnerability factor underlying the psychosocial difficulties encountered by people with cancer. Methods: A total of 10 women with nonmetastatic breast cancer who self-identified as perfectionists were recruited at the end of their radiation therapy to take part in a focus group or an individual interview. Results: The hybrid inductive-deductive thematic analysis revealed the following themes: (1) various dimensions of perfectionism; (2) low self-compassion; (3) control seeking; (4) low self-disclosure; (5) low social support seeking; (6) various coping strategies; (7) relative stability of perfectionism after cancer; (8) need to be a perfect patient; (9) negative psychological impacts; and (10) low interest in an intervention targeting perfectionism. Conclusions: This exploratory study psychosocial difficulties that may be related to perfectionism in patients with breast cancer, from both a systemic and an individual perspective.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".