MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074591248 · doi:10.1177/153473540200100116

Group Psychological Therapy: An Integral Part of Care for Cancer Patients

2002· review· en· W2074591248 on OpenAlexaff
Alastair J. Cunningham

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative Cancer Therapies · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOntario Institute for Cancer Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialCoping (psychology)DistressQuality of life (healthcare)PsychologyExploratory researchPsychotherapistRandomized controlled trialMedicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adjuvant psychological therapy can help cancer patients in 2 main ways. It has, first, a well-documented capacity to alleviate distress and thus improve quality of life. However, if this kind of assistance is to be made available to the majority of cancer patients, a number of problems need to be solved: administrators need to become aware of the evidence for efficacy of psychosocial care for cancer patients; the treatment needs to be advocated in a manner that would benefit patients rather than being left to the patient to request it; and, for reasons of economy, large, classroom-style, psychoeducational classes may need to be offered in place of small support groups. Furthermore, to allow for individual differences in preferences and abilities, a variety of modes of help should ideally be made available. The author discusses how the provision of coping strategies can be organized in a progressive way to encourage development of greater coping skills. An example of such a stepwise program is given, all aspects of which have been researched and made available in manuals over some 20 years. The possibility of prolonging life with this kind of therapy is still controversial. While randomized controlled trials have become the method of choice to investigate this question, reasons are given for strongly preferring more exploratory modes of research at the present early stage of knowledge. The central task is seen as understanding the states of mind that promote healing or longer life, something that cross-sectional, psychometric research has not been able to accomplish. As an alternative, prospective, longitudinal designs are needed, with detailed interview-style analyses of patients' mental attributes. An example is given of one such study. Furthermore, it is suggested that we consider much more intensive therapies of this kind, since the impact of mind on body will logically be related to the extent of psychological change experienced.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.313 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative Cancer TherapiesSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207