Development and pilot testing of a psychoeducational intervention for oral cancer patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Oral cancer elicits considerable distress in both the pre and post-treatment periods. This paper details the development, validation and pilot-testing of a psychoeducational intervention for oral cancer patients. METHOD: An educational booklet covering information about oral cancer and its treatment and effective coping strategies was developed by a multi-disciplinary team. It was evaluated by patient focus groups and content/educational experts, delivered to subjects in pre and post-operative presentations by a health educator, and pilot-tested in a randomized controlled trial versus standard care. RESULTS: Pilot data from 19 subjects (10 psychoeducation, nine standard care) indicates that the intervention is feasible and highly acceptable. At follow-up the intervention group showed a gain in knowledge, less body image disturbance, lower anxiety and a trend toward higher wellbeing. CONCLUSION: This program, which is currently being evaluated in a larger RCT with extended follow-up, should prove useful in reducing the psychosocial burden of oral cancer and its treatment.
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 | 0.000 | 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".