A supportive-expressive group intervention for women with a family history of breast cancer: results of a phase II study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that there are significant psychological and behavioural sequelae associated with having a family history of breast cancer (BC) which can interfere with comprehension of risk estimates. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to develop, standardize and do preliminary testing of a group intervention designed to address the emotional impact of having a family history of BC. METHODS: This study is a single-arm pilot design with pre- and post-measures of perceived risk, psychosocial distress, knowledge and screening practices. RESULTS: The primary study outcome measure of risk comprehension was significantly improved by 70%, according to our predetermined criteria for success. In addition, the most important secondary measures of psychosocial functioning, such as cancer-related distress (p=0.025), depression (p=0.05), anxiety (p=0.005) and unresolved grief (p=0.034) were significantly improved. CONCLUSION: The results of this initial pilot study are encouraging; however, further research is required, using a randomized controlled study design to evaluate the relative contribution of this intervention to the successful modification of risk comprehension, enhanced psychological functioning, and to promote optimal screening adherence.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".