The Black Women’s Experience Navigating the Healthcare System with Metastatic Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context Black women with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) often experience systemic inequities and stigma that shape their healthcare experiences and navigation of the healthcare system. Although the literature suggests that Black women are at greater risk of breast cancer-related morbidity and adverse outcomes, their experiences are often overlooked, limiting the understanding of their mBC journeys. Objective This study aimed to investigate the experiences of Canadian Black women with mBC to identify key challenges and barriers impacting their healthcare journeys while providing actionable recommendations to improve their healthcare experience. Study Design and Analysis Participants were asked about their healthcare experiences through semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Two independent members of the research team conducted thematic analyses using an inductive approach to identify key themes from the interview transcripts. Setting or Dataset Participants were recruited from across Canada to participate in this virtual study. Population Studied The study included Black women living in Canada who received a diagnosis of mBC at any point in their life. Intervention/Instrument An interview guide directed the interviews based on the participants’ discussions of their experiences. The interviews were transcribed verbatim for analysis. Outcome Measures Key themes reflective of participants’ healthcare experiences. Results 5 key themes emerged from this study: 1)Necessity and Emotional Burden of Self-Advocacy 2)The Impact of Exclusion and Lack of Representation on Patient Care 3)The Social and Emotional Toll of mBC 4)Cultural Stigma and Taboo of Cancer 5)Recommendations for Improving Care Conclusions This study reveals the multifaceted barriers that Black women with mBC face, impacting their medical care, self-esteem, social relationships, and daily lives. By improving the representation of Black women’s experiences in research, prioritizing identity-affirming care, and expanding access to tailored health education, these inequities can be addressed, and health outcomes can be improved among Black women with mBC.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".