MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996116305 · doi:10.3109/08039488.2014.989260

The effect of psychoeducation on anxiety and pain in patients with mastalgia

2014· article· en· W1996116305 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Agah Bahadır Öztürk, Yarkın Özenli, Serhat Burkay Ozturk, Safa Önel, Gökhan Soker, Gülşah Şeydaoğlu

Bibliographic record

VenueNordic Journal of Psychiatry · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychoeducationAnxietyVisual analogue scaleMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)AlexithymiaState-Trait Anxiety InventoryEtiologyPhysical therapyPsychiatryIntervention (counseling)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mastalgia is a debilitating disorder, which has serious effects on one's daily life and causes significant medical costs. AIM: Mastalgia patients determine the overall approach and improve the quality of life of patients. METHODS: In this study, the outcomes of psychoeducation on anxiety and pain in a group of patients with mastalgia without an organic etiology have been investigated. 88 patients were included in this study. The socio-demographic data form, the Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL-90), the Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20 (TAS-20), the Hamilton Anxiety Scorer (HAM-A), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI-I, STAI-2) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were all applied to the patients. 64 randomly selected patients (Group 1) were given psychoeducation while the remaining 24 (Group 2) were not. All patients were called back after 1 month for repeats of the HAM-A, STAI-I, STAI-2 and VAS tests. RESULTS: The results of this study demonstrated that psychoeducation has positive impacts on the perception of pain besides stationary, contemporary and total anxiety scores. CONCLUSIONS: It is concluded that the administration of psychoeducation is a good choice in the degradation of anxiety symptoms and pain.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.099
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.002
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.222 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNordic Journal of PsychiatrySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207