MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract P6-09-01: Investigating the effectiveness of a psycho-educational behavioral intervention for cancer-related cognitive dysfunction in women with breast and gynecological cancer: Knowledge, self-efficacy, and behavioral change.

2012· article· en· W2074039588 on OpenAlexaff
LJ Bernstein, Dilan Dissanayake, KM Tirona, JM Nyhof-Young, PA Catton

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerDistressCancerSurvivorship curveQuality of life (healthcare)Likert scaleIntervention (counseling)CognitionClinical psychologyPhysical therapyPsychologyInternal medicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Approximately one third of individuals receiving chemotherapy for breast cancer experience cancer-related cognitive dysfunction (CRCD). CRCD significantly impacts quality of life, employment, and social relationships, and can hinder ability to return to pre-cancer activities. The cause is likely multi-factorial, and currently no medical treatment exists. The Cancer Survivorship Program at Princess Margaret Hospital provides a behavioral-intervention for patients with CRCD. The single, one-on-one, hour long session provides information and compensatory strategies to improve knowledge, self-management skills, and decrease the impact of cognitive dysfunction on daily life. Methods: A mixed-method study assessed patient perceptions. Eligible women had been or were currently being treated for a diagnosis of breast or gynecological cancer and were English speakers. Likert-scale based questionnaires were administered immediately before, immediately after, and 6 weeks post-intervention. Six parameters were evaluated quantitatively: i) program delivery, ii) perception of knowledge, iii) distress, iv) self-efficacy, v) behavior change, and vi) behavioral change effectiveness. Ten individuals also participated in qualitative, semi-structured audio-recorded interviews 1–6 weeks post questionnaire completion. Responses were analyzed using the constant comparative method. Results: 72 female cancer survivors (61 breast; 11 gynecological; mean age 51.3) completed questionnaires. Immediately post-intervention, patients reported significant increases in perception of knowledge, self-efficacy, and decreases in CRCD-related distress, and these improvements were maintained at 6 week follow up (p < .01 in all cases). Participants reported numerous benefits associated with increased knowledge, including a sense of validation and reassurance, and increased confidence and success in managing their symptoms. No statistically significant differences in intervention effectiveness were observed as a function of patient age (older or younger than 50), education (greater or less than grade 12), or employment status (skilled worker or higher vs lower). However, individuals of low employment status were less satisfied with the volume of information in the intervention. Interviews indicated their preference for an additional session to reinforce the techniques discussed. Thematic analysis also indicated that adoption of new compensatory strategies was associated with a sense of control, confidence and pride for all patients; although barriers were identified for some that prevented long-term use (e.g. techniques take time and effort). Employment distress was mainly tied to difficulties with work tasks. Conclusions: A one-hour, psycho-educational behavioral intervention can be effective for breast and gynecological cancer patients suffering from CRCD. Benefits can last at least 6 weeks. Results suggest a need for better intervention integration with oncology appointments, a follow-up session to help individuals assimilate CRCD information, and increased session personalization to address individual difficulties and job concerns. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2012;72(24 Suppl):Abstract nr P6-09-01.

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)0.002
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.700

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.345 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer ResearchSame topicCancer-related cognitive impairment studiesFrench-language works237,207