MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075815106 · doi:10.12968/ijpn.2012.18.2.69

A hypnotherapy intervention for the treatment of anxiety in patients with cancer receiving palliative care

2012· article· en· W2075815106 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marek Plaskota, Caroline Lucas, Rosie Evans, Kathleen Pizzoferro, Treena Saini, Karen Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Palliative Nursing · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActigraphyAnxietyMedicinePalliative careIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)Depression (economics)Hospital Anxiety and Depression ScalePhysical therapyPopulationPsychological interventionPsychiatryInsomniaNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pilot study aimed to assess the benefits of hypnotherapy in the management of anxiety and other symptoms, including depression and sleep disturbance, in palliative care patients with cancer. Eleven hospice patients received four sessions of hypnotherapy and completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, and the Verran and Snyder-Halpern Scale at set time points. Wrist actigraphy also provided an objective assessment of sleep quality. After the second hypnotherapy session there was a statistically significant reduction in mean anxiety and symptom severity, but not in depression or sleep disturbance. After the fourth session there was a statistically significant reduction in all four patient-reported measures but not in actigraphy. These results offer evidence that hypnotherapy can reduce anxiety in palliative care patients, as well as improving sleep and the severity of psychological and physical symptoms. Further studies are needed to explore whether the observed benefits were a direct result of the hypnotherapy and how the intervention could most benefit this patient population.

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)0.000
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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.342 · 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

Citations36
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Palliative NursingSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207