Effects of a brief intervention on social support and psychiatric morbidity in breast cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) To cross-sectionally and longitudinally investigate relationships between the availability and adequacy of both close personal attachment and interactional support, and psychiatric morbidity in a sample of early stage breast cancer patients participating in a 6-week psychoeducational intervention. (2) To address the question of directionality in these longitudinal relationships. (3) To investigate the effects of the intervention on levels of social support. Eighty-nine women were enrolled in the study, and randomly assigned to either the treatment or control condition. They were evaluated with the Interview Schedule for Social Interaction (ISSI), the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI), the Global Severity Index (GSI) of the Symptom Checklist (SCL) -90-R, and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R (SCID) at three time periods: baseline (pre-intervention), 1 year post-intervention and 2 years post-intervention. Relationships between social support and the psychiatric measures were evaluated both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. Cross-sectionally, there were strong associations at each time period between being diagnosed with a DSM-III-R Axis I disorder and having less adequate perceived social support from both close relationships and more distant social ties. Initial levels of psychiatric symptoms on the BDI and GSI were better predictors of later social support than initial social support variables were of later psychiatric symptoms. Participation in the group intervention did not result in changes in social support at 1 or 2 years post-intervention. Cross-sectionally, there was a strong relationship between social support and psychiatric morbidity in these patients with early-stage breast cancer. Longitudinally, it appeared that although social support influenced psychiatric symptomatology somewhat, the influence of psychiatric symptoms on social support was greater. This illustrates the importance of both working to bolster social support and dealing with psychiatric symptomatology in this population.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".