Evaluation of the making sense of brain tumor program: a randomized controlled trial of a home‐based psychosocial intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Despite significant psychosocial morbidity, there are few controlled trials of psychological support for people with brain tumor. This study evaluated the efficacy of the Making Sense of Brain Tumor (MSoBT) program, a home-based psychosocial intervention. DESIGN: A randomized controlled trial with a wait list condition METHODS: Fifty participants aged 17-82 years with brain tumor (54% benign) were randomly allocated to immediate treatment (n = 27) or a waitlist (n = 23). Measures included Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), McGill Quality of Life (MQOL) Questionnaire, Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-Br). The immediate treatment group received the 10-session MSoBT program, while the waitlist group received usual care for 10 weeks and were then re-assessed before receiving the MSoBT program. A 6-month post-intervention follow-up was conducted. RESULTS: Analysis of covariance adjusting for baseline functioning identified that the immediate treatment group reported significantly lower levels of depression on the MADRS (η(p)(2) = .19) and higher levels of existential well-being on the MQOL (η(p)(2) = .13) and functional well-being (η(p)(2) = .21) and global quality of life on the FACT-Br (η(p)(2) = .12) at post-assessment than the waitlist group. At 6-month follow-up participants reported significantly lower levels of depression and stress and higher existential well-being and quality of life relative to pre-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: The MSoBT program appears to have efficacy for enhancing psychological well-being and quality of life after brain tumor.
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 | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".