Lessons Learned: Outcomes and Methodology of a Coping Skills Intervention Trial Comparing Individual and Group Formats for Patients with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Nucare, a short-term psychoeducational coping skills training intervention was evaluated in a randomized controlled clinical trial (RCT) of 225 newly diagnosed breast and colon cancer patients. METHOD: Measures of psychosocial distress, well being and optimism were evaluated every four months during a one-year period. Patients were randomized to one of four arms: Nucare presented in an individual basis; Nucare presented in a group format; a non-directive supportive group; and a no-intervention control. The interventions were provided in five sessions of ninety minutes each. RESULTS: Patients with breast cancer who received Nucare presented in an individual format showed more significant improvements in well-being over time compared to those in the control and group arms. CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to develop functioning groups within the RCT. Partial explanations for the latter finding include the structural limitations of the RCT: the groups were small, difficult to schedule and patients indicated that they would have preferred to choose whether or not to participate in a group. The positive changes in women with breast cancer who received Nucare persisted at 12 months.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".