“We don’t do any of these things because we are a death-denying culture”: Sociocultural perspectives of Black and Latinx cancer caregivers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cancer is an enormous public health burden among Black and Latinx cancer survivors, and they are at risk of facing barriers to accessing cancer treatment and support in the United States. This study explored the unique challenges and experiences faced by Black and Latinx cancer survivors through the lens of their caregivers, including the specific cultural, social, and systemic factors that influence cancer survivorship experience and quality of life within these communities in the United States. METHODS: We used a qualitative descriptive design for the study, and conducted 6 focus group discussions (3 Latinx and 3 Black groups) with a total of 33 caregivers of cancer survivors, (Mean age = 63 years). Data were analyzed using inductive content analysis. RESULTS: We identified 3 main themes: (1) families as (un)stressors in survivorship such as the vitality of social connections and families as unintended burden; (2) responses after diagnosis specifically whether to conceal or accept a diagnosis, and (3) experiencing health care barriers including communication gaps, biased prioritizing of care, and issues of power, trust, and need for stewardship. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: The findings align with previous research, highlighting the complex interplay between cultural, familial, and healthcare factors in cancer survivorship experiences within underserved communities. The study reiterates the need for culturally tailored emotional, physical, financial, and informational support for survivors and their caregivers. Also, to improve quality of life, the study highlights a need to strengthen mental health and coping strategies, to help address psychological distress and improve resilience among survivors and their caregivers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".