Breast cancer in rural communities / by Julia M. Fuchs.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper provides a review of the existing research on women?s experience of breast \ncancer in rural communities. It includes a total of 46 studies that used quantitative and qualitative \nresearch methods. In the review of the literature, the challenges identified for rural women with \nbreast cancer include: travel issues; financial hardships; work-related issues; impacts on family \nmembers and caregivers; psychosocial adjustment; and information needs. The findings indicate \nthat rural and urban women often receive different treatments for breast cancer; that access to \nhealth care services is more limited in rural communities; and that rural women and their \nfamilies have a considerable need for support and information. Nonetheless, rural women with \nbreast cancer are able to rely on friends and family, peer supports, doctors, and informal \nnetworks in their close-knit communities. Further, utilization of health care delivery approaches \nsuch as mobile breast screening, telemedicine and teleoncology have the potential to increase \nrural women?s access to health services. The review discusses the practice and policy \nimplications of these findings as well as suggestions for future research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".