?Someone who cares:? A qualitative investigation of cancer patients' experiences of psychotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although psychotherapy for cancer patients is known to be effective, there is little in the research to indicate what elements of their therapy patients find most helpful. To explore this question, we interviewed cancer patients diagnosed with metastatic disease who had been offered two different forms of individual psychotherapy as part of a larger funded study. These interviews were then transcribed and analysed using grounded theory. Our aim was to explore patients' psychotherapy experience from their perspective and to determine what common elements in the two approaches they felt were of greatest benefit. Results indicated that patients offered cognitive behavioural therapy had similar experiences to those who received a type of relaxation therapy that included time for non-specific, patient-centred 'chat'. Central to participants' experiences was the opportunity both therapies gave them to enter a relationship in which they could safely share their thoughts and feelings with someone who seemed genuinely interested in understanding their cancer experience and 'truly cared'. These findings suggest that the unique perspectives of cancer patients can add considerably to our understanding of individual psychotherapy in cancer care settings and how this might be improved.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".