Examining stigma in experiences of male breast cancer patients and its impact as a barrier to care: a narrative review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Male breast cancer (MBC) accounts for nearly one percent of all diagnosed breast cancer (BC). In the United States alone, there were 2,670 MBC reported cases and 500 fatalities in 2019. In addition to the general challenges faced by patients to diagnose and treat cancer, MBC patients experience stigma from the medical community and their own feelings of embarrassment. The presence of stigma has a negative impact on the quality of life and psychological outcomes of MBC patients. This narrative review investigates current research on the presence of stigma in the diagnosis and care of MBC patients, and the role of stigma as a barrier to care. METHODS: Current literature on MBC and stigma was found through a search of PubMed and Google Scholar. The search strategy consisted of keywords related to "male breast cancer, stigma, awareness, experiences, and social support". Studies published from January 2005 to April 2024, that were retrievable and written in English, were included in this review. KEY CONTENT AND FINDINGS: Several studies have supported that MBC patients experience stigma due to the lack of awareness in the medical community, and feelings of embarrassment felt by the patients. This stigma is seen through insufficient guidelines on MBC diagnosis and treatment and a lack of male-specific information for BC. These topics of stigma act as barriers to care, as they lead to psychological distress (e.g., anxiety and depression) and delayed diagnoses. Current studies suggest addressing the lack of information and awareness of MBC and implementing screening procedures to mitigate the negative impact of stigma. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the presence of stigma in the care of MBC patients and its distressing effects on patients. There is a need for increased awareness among the medical community to improve diagnosis and treatment of MBC patients, to allow for more equitable care. Future therapies should focus on the viability of routine screening programs for male patients and addressing the gap of male-specific information.
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 | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".