The Effects and Expense of Augmenting Usual Cancer Clinic Care With Telephone Problem-Solving Counseling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was done to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of individualized, problem-solving counseling provided by baccalaureate nurses over the telephone to prevent the onset of depression in persons with breast, lung, or prostate cancer. Of 175 persons randomized, 149 completed the 8-month follow-up. The primary outcome measures were changes in the Jalowiec Coping Scale, the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies in Depression Scale, and the Derogotis Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale. In addition, expenditures for people's use of all health and social services were computed at baseline and follow-up. Telephone counseling improved the use of more favorable coping behaviors, prevented a clinically important but not statistically significant decline into depression, and poor psychosocial adjustment in a group of people with mixed cancer. These results were associated with a greater total per person per annum expenditure for use of all other health and social services in the community compared with the control group. In a situation of limited resources and a service producing more effect for more costs, one needs either to examine what services to forgo to offer this service or to carefully target the new service to those most likely to benefit.
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 | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".