A Randomized Wait-List Controlled Trial of Feasibility and Efficacy of an Online Mindfulness–Based Cancer Recovery Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: A treatment-as-usual randomized wait-list controlled trial was conducted to investigate the feasibility and impact of an online synchronous Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery (MBCR) group program for underserved distressed cancer survivors. METHODS: Sixty-two men and women exhibiting moderate to high distress within 3 years of completing primary cancer treatment without access to in-person MBCR were randomized to either immediate online MBCR (n = 30) or to wait for the next available program (n = 32). Participants completed questionnaires preintervention and postintervention or wait period online. Program evaluations were completed after MBCR. Feasibility was tracked through monitoring eligibility and participation through the protocol. Intent-to-treat mixed-model analyses for repeated measures were conducted. RESULTS: Feasibility targets for recruitment and retention were achieved, and participants were satisfied and would recommend online MBCR. There were significant improvements and moderate Cohen d effect sizes in the online MBCR group relative to controls after MBCR for total scores of mood disturbance (d = 0.44, p = .049), stress symptoms (d = 0.49, p = .021), spirituality (d = 0.37, p = .040), and mindfully acting with awareness (d = 0.50, p = .026). Main effects of time were observed for posttraumatic growth and remaining mindfulness facets. CONCLUSIONS: Results provide evidence for the feasibility and efficacy of an online adaptation of MBCR for the reduction of mood disturbance and stress symptoms, as well as an increase in spirituality and mindfully acting with awareness compared with a treatment-as-usual wait-list. Future study using larger active control RCT designs is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01476891.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".