Opening Doors to Using Nonprofit Community-Based Services to Better Cope With Breast Cancer: A Descriptive Interpretive Study of Women’s Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Nonprofit community-based organizations (COs) are expected to complement specialized cancer care and help meet the needs of people living with and beyond cancer. However, nonprofit community organization (CO) services are underused by women living with and beyond breast cancer (WLWB-BC). Objective: The objective of this study is to explore women’s experience of using CO services. Methods: The study is designed as a qualitative study using Interpretive Description. Ten WLWB-BC with experience using CO services were recruited for individual interviews. Thematic content analysis of interview data relied on an iterative 3-cycle coding process to identify factors that affect women’s activation to use CO support services. Results: Interviews reveal variations in women’s recognition of their need for support, in their experience of identifying COs to meet these needs, and in the process of accessing and using CO services. The concept of candidacy emerges as a determinant process in the use of CO services, influenced by the highly contextualized quality of interactions between women, cancer team professionals and COs. Discussion and Conclusion: Integrating CO services requires more productive interactions. Our findings shed light on how WLWB-BC seek response to their needs outside specialized cancer care. An important aspect is how they see themselves as candidates for CO services and how care providers legitimate perceived needs and eligibility. Candidacy and productive interactions create a virtuous circle supporting activated and informed providers which in turn support WLWB-BC activation in self-management and CO service utilization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".