Characteristics of multidimensional pain in women with breast cancer treated at a referral hospital: a cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pain is composed of multiple dimensions and can affect between 10% and 30% of women with breast cancer. This study evaluated physical, emotional, social, and spiritual pain components of women with breast cancer treated in a reference hospital complex in Pernambuco, Brazil. METHODS: An observational, descriptive, and cross-sectional study was conducted with 43 women diagnosed with breast cancer and treatment started. Pain and its dimensions were assessed by using Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS-r), part of the Brazilian version of McGill questionnaire (Br-MPQ), Spiritual Well-being Scale (SWBS) and a questionnaire for clinical and sociodemographic data. RESULTS: The majority (79.07%) of women reported some pain at the time of the interview, with a mean of moderate pain intensity (5.28 ± 3.54). The most used expressions to describe the pain were: tiring (78.57%), nauseating (57.14%), acute (47.62) and sufocating (42.86%). The impact of pain on daily life affected the sub-items: sleep (67.44%), personal hygiene (44.18%), locomotion (48.83%), appetite/food (32.56%); in the social context 55.81% of the interviewees reported some degree of loss in work, 67.44% in leisure activities, 74.91% in domestic activities and 9.30% had early retirement. The spiritual/existential/religious scores were mostly positive. CONCLUSION: Physical, emotional, social and spiritual complaints were present in women with breast cancer and indicates the need for an early approach to pain by health professionals, especially physicians.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".