Prevalence and associated factors of psychological distress among patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to evaluate the literature on the prevalence of psychological distress and its associated factors in patients with breast cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Wanfang were searched from inception to 11 June 2024. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies reported data on the prevalence and correlates of psychological distress were included. Review, letter, conference abstracts and articles not available in English and Chinese were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two researchers independently conducted literature screening, data extraction and bias risk assessment. Meta-analysis was employed to estimate the prevalence and correlates of psychological distress in patients with breast cancer. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale were used for quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed by using the R V.4.1.1 software. RESULTS: =98%). Results showed that psychological distress was positively correlated with younger age (z=0.13, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.20), having children (z=0.39, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.61), poor financial situation (z=0.12, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.26), short time since diagnosis (z=0.19, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.36), previous treatment (z=0.15, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.27), distant metastasis (z=0.31, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.52), chemotherapy (z=0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38), prior emotional status (z=0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.50), body image damaged (z=0.10, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.21), negative coping (z=0.12, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.34), communication avoidance (z=0.32, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.39) and negatively correlated with married (z=-0.25, 95% CI 0.45 to -0.02), high education level (z=-0.19, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.05), having insured (z=-0.04, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.08), full employment (z=-0.40, 95% CI -0.61 to -0.14), time of completion of treatment (z=-0.12, 95% CI -0.30 to -0.06), surgery (z=-0.05, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.45), social support (z=-0.18, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.06), post-traumatic growth (z=-0.19, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.03), good physical conditions (z=-0.17, 95% CI -0.29 to -0.04), positive coping (z=-0.22, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.15). CONCLUSION: Our findings indicated that the prevalence of psychological distress in patients with breast cancers was 50% and 21 correlates of psychological distress. Screening and evidence-based interventions are urgent and essential to address this public concern and promote the health of patients with breast cancer. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023397109.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".