Effects of an expressive writing intervention on cancer‐related distress in Danish breast cancer survivors — results from a nationwide randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".