MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416554586 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-093973

Adherence to Choosing Wisely Africa recommendations in breast cancer care: a cross-sectional study across three Sub-Saharan African centres

2025· article· en· W4416554586 on OpenAlexaff
Fidel Rubagumya, Eulade Rugengamanzi, Sarah K. Nyagabona, Jerry Ndumbalo, Vincent Kwizera, Aline Uwimbabazi, Kaligirwa Celyna, Hannah Ayettey, Verna Vanderpuye, Wilma M. Hopman, Nazik Hammad, Christopher M. Booth

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicEconomic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerHealth carePublic healthHealth services researchAlternative medicineMEDLINEEpidemiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The expenses associated with cancer treatment are increasing at a rapid pace. The financial strain of providing care is experienced worldwide, but is particularly pronounced in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). This has resulted in a growing acknowledgement of the importance of value-based cancer care. Choosing Wisely Africa (CWA) is an initiative aimed at reducing the excessive use and expenses associated with cancer treatment. In this study, we assessed adherence to CWA recommendations for the treatment of breast cancer in three high-volume cancer centres in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). DESIGN: tests, to compare adherence among these countries. SETTINGS: This study was conducted in three cancer centres (Ocean Road Cancer Institute, Rwanda Military Hospital and Korle Bu Teaching Hospital) in three countries (Tanzania, Rwanda and Ghana, respectively). PARTICIPANTS: A total of 542 patients were recruited. Eligible patients were those with a breast cancer diagnosis and complete data as pertaining to five CWA recommendations. RESULTS: A total of 542 participants with a mean age of 51 years were included. Participants were well distributed across Ghana (37%), Rwanda (34%) and Tanzania (29%). Female patients represented 97% of the study cohort. Half (51%) of the participants had some form of insurance. The study observed high adherence to cancer staging (94%) before treatment and histological confirmation (91%) before breast lump removal across all sites. Hypofractionation was used in 0% of cases in Rwanda, 42% in Ghana and 70% in Tanzania. CONCLUSION: This study provides critical insights into the implementation of CWA recommendations in breast cancer care in SSA. It highlights the disparities in adherence to CWA recommendations across different centres, showing the need for policy-driven changes and healthcare infrastructure improvement to standardise cancer care practices in LMICs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.113
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicEconomic and Financial Impacts of CancerFrench-language works237,207