MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1506964058 · doi:10.1002/pon.3193

Effects of an expressive writing intervention on cancer‐related distress in Danish breast cancer survivors — results from a nationwide randomized clinical trial

2012· article· en· W1506964058 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKræftens Bekæmpelse
KeywordsDanishBreast cancerRandomized controlled trialDistressIntervention (counseling)Clinical trialMedicineCancerPsychologyClinical psychologyDemographyPsychiatryInternal medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of an expressive writing intervention (EWI) on cancer-related distress, depressive symptoms, and mood in women treated for early stage breast cancer. METHODS: A nationwide sample of 507 Danish women who had recently completed treatment for primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to three 20-min home-based writing exercises, one week apart, focusing on either emotional disclosure (EWI group) or a non-emotional topic (control group). Cancer-related distress [Impact of Event Scale (IES)], depressive symptoms (Beck Depression Inventory-Short Form), and negative (37-item Profile of Moods State) and positive mood (Passive Positive Mood Scale) were assessed at baseline and at 3 and 9 months post-intervention. Choice of writing topic (cancer versus other), alexithymia (20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale), and social constraints (Social Constraints Scale) were included as possible moderators. RESULTS: Significant (p<0.01) group differences in mood change from before to immediately after each session suggested successful manipulation. Reductions over time in psychological symptoms were seen in both groups (p<0.05), but no time × group interactions were found. Choice of writing topic moderated effects on IES, with women writing about other themes showing greater reductions in cancer-related avoidance than women writing about their cancer. Fewer depressive symptoms and higher levels of positive mood were seen 3 months post-intervention in women writing about their cancer when compared with the control group. Difficulties describing feelings and externally oriented thinking (20-item Toronto Alexithymia Scale) moderated effects on positive mood and IES-total, while no moderating effects were found of social constraints. CONCLUSIONS: In concordance with the majority of previous results with cancer patients, no main effects of EWI were found for cancer-related distress, depressive symptoms, and mood. Moderator analyses suggested that choice of writing topic and ability to process emotional experiences should be studied further.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.426 · 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