Psychological benefits for cancer patients and their partners participating in mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Cancer patients experience many negative psychological symptoms including stress, anxiety, and depression. This distress is not limited to the patient, as their partners also experience many psychological challenges. Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) programs have demonstrated clinical benefit for a variety of chronic illnesses, including cancer. This is the first study to report MBSR participation with partners of cancer patients. METHODS: This study examined the impact of an 8-week MBSR program for 21 couples who attended the program together on outcomes of mood disturbance, symptoms of stress, and mindfulness. RESULTS: Significant reductions for both patients and partners in mood disturbance (p<0.05) and the Calgary Symptoms of Stress Inventory (C-SOSI) subscales of muscle tension (p<0.01), neurological/GI (p<0.05), and upper respiratory (p<0.01) symptoms were observed after program participation. Significant increases in mindfulness (p<0.05) were also reported in both groups. No significant correlations were observed between patient and partner scores on any measures at baseline or on change scores pre- to post-intervention; however, after MBSR participation couple's scores on the Profile of Mood States and C-SOSI were more highly correlated with one-another. Post-intervention, partners' mood disturbance scores were significantly positively correlated with patients' symptoms of stress and negatively correlated with patients' levels of mindfulness. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the MBSR program was helpful for improving psychological functioning and mindfulness for both members of the couple. Several avenues of future research are suggested to further explore potential benefits of joint couple attendance in the MBSR program.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".