A qualitative study of self‐perceived effects of mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR) in a psychosocial oncology setting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quantitative research has shown Mindfulness‐based Stress Reduction (MBSR) programmes can reduce mood disturbance, improve quality of life, and decrease stress symptoms of cancer patients. However, the range of subjective effects experienced by programme participants has not been clearly described. Nine cancer patients who had participated in an 8‐week MBSR programme through the Tom Baker Cancer Centre's Department of Psychosocial Resources, and who continued to attend weekly drop‐in MBSR sessions were interviewed for this study. Qualitative research was conducted using grounded theory analysis. Data from semi‐structured interviews and a focus group were analysed using QSR N6 software to identify themes concerning the effects patients experienced by adding meditation to their lives. Five major themes emerged from the data: (1) opening to change; (2) self‐control; (3) shared experience; (4) personal growth; (5) spirituality. This information was used to develop specific theory concerning mechanisms whereby MBSR effects change for cancer patients. These understandings may be used to refine and further develop MBSR programmes to better assist patients during cancer diagnosis, treatment and recovery. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".