A Controlled Trial of Group Cognitive Behavior Therapy for Irish Breast Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate a manualized cognitive behavioral group intervention for early-stage breast cancer patients. Sixty-nine women were recruited at an Irish specialist oncology hospital and assigned to a 6-week cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) program or an educational control group. Participants were assessed at baseline, 6 weeks, and 6-month follow-up. Groups x Time (2 x 3) ANOVAs showed that the program did not lead to greater improvement on standardized measures of coping, quality of life, or mood compared with the control group. Regression analyses showed that maladaptive coping and distress at baseline were predictive of psychological adjustment at follow-up. Level of distress was also predictive of quality of life at follow-up. Repeated measures ANOVAs of data from cases in the intervention group showed that patients who completed the program showed significant improvement in problem severity, impact of problems, coping ability, and goal attainment from pre- to posttreatment, and these gains were maintained at follow-up for problem severity and impact of problems, but not for coping ability or goal attainment. Participation in the program did not lead to less health service usage during the period from baseline to follow-up, compared with the educational control group. A controlled trial provided limited evidence for the effectiveness of brief cognitive behavior intervention in enhancing psychological adjustment of early-stage breast cancer patients with nonclinically significant levels of psychological distress. Future research should evaluate the effectiveness of the program for patients with elevated levels of psychological distress and limited coping resources.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".