Quality of Life in a Randomized Trial of Group Psychosocial Support in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Overall Effects of the Intervention and an Exploration of Missing Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of a standardized group psychosocial intervention on health-related quality of life (HrQOL) in women with metastatic breast cancer and to explore the effect of missing data in HrQOL analyses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Between 1993 and 1998, seven Canadian centers randomly assigned 235 eligible women to participate in a weekly, 90-minute, therapist-led support group that adhered to principles of supportive-expressive (SE) therapy or to a control arm (no SE). All women received educational material and any type of medical or psychosocial care deemed necessary. HrQOL data were prospectively collected using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 months. The primary HrQOL analyses compared scores in the two study arms. Analyses were limited to women with appropriate baseline HrQOL information (n = 215). RESULTS: Baseline EORTC QLQ-C30 scores were not different between the two study arms (all P >.05). Primary analysis of all subscales failed to show a significant influence of the intervention on HrQOL (all P >.05). There was a significant deterioration over time in several functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30: global (P =.03), physical (P =.0002), role (P =.01), and cognitive functioning (P =.04); and in symptom scales: dyspnea (P =.007), appetite loss (P =.04), and fatigue (P =.003); these changes were independent of randomization allocation. Results were similar in additional analyses of overall HrQOL using a variety of approaches to handling missing data. CONCLUSION: Supportive-expressive group therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer does not appear to influence HrQOL, as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".