Psychoeducational interventions to alleviate hot flashes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Hot flashes are frequent and bothersome in menopausal women and breast cancer survivors. Most pharmacological interventions or herbal therapies for hot flashes have limitations because of contraindications in breast cancer survivors, side effects, or lack of proven efficacy. The aim of this study was to assess the effects of psychoeducational interventions, including relaxation, on hot flashes in menopausal women and women previously diagnosed with breast cancer. DESIGN: MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, the Cochrane Library, and reference lists of articles were searched for relevant articles published between January 1980 and December 2006. Data extraction and quality assessment were carried out by two of the authors. RESULTS: Fourteen studies involving 475 patients were included. Five studies evaluated psychoeducational interventions, including education, counseling, cognitive-behavioral strategies, and mindfulness-based stress reduction. All showed an improvement in vasomotor symptoms, although the experimental group in the two studies containing the largest numbers of participants also received pharmacological therapies. Nine trials evaluated the efficacy of relaxation techniques to improve hot flashes. Five of these studies showed a significant improvement in hot flashes. Only three of the 14 studies evaluated a psychoeducational intervention in breast cancer survivors. Two of these showed a significant improvement in hot flashes. CONCLUSIONS: Psychoeducational interventions, including relaxation, seem to alleviate hot flashes in menopausal women and breast cancer survivors; however, the methodological quality of published research is either fair or poor. More studies are required, especially in the breast cancer population where only a few studies are available, before psychoeducational interventions are offered as a treatment option.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".