Cultural Influences on the Receipt of Breast Reconstruction: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Postmastectomy breast reconstruction can provide breast cancer patients with lasting psychosocial, functional, and body image benefits. Although sociodemographic factors affecting the receipt of breast reconstruction have been well studied, the cultural factors influencing patients' decisions to undergo breast reconstruction remain unclear. There are currently no reviews on cultural factors influencing breast reconstruction decision-making. This scoping review aimed to broadly evaluate the current literature on cultural factors that influence the receipt of breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients who have undergone mastectomies. METHODS: A combination of keywords and subject headings was used to search for articles related to breast reconstruction and decision-making. Databases were searched from inception to November 20, 2023. Screening was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Scoping Reviews guidelines, and quantitative studies examining the receipt of breast reconstruction in breast cancer patients following mastectomy were evaluated for inclusion. RESULTS: Of the 4520 studies that were screened, 61 were included in the final review. The majority of studies included in the review were retrospective and performed in the United States. Included studies were evaluated for cultural influences on the receipt of breast reconstruction. Six themes emerged across the included studies: race and ethnicity, language and communication barriers, education and literacy, cultural competency, patient perceptions, and family and relationships. CONCLUSION: In addition to well-established influences on breast reconstruction such as race and ethnicity, this review broadly identified additional cultural factors that influence patients' decisions to undergo breast reconstruction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".