A Brief Intervention for Fatigue Management in Breast Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this randomized control trial was to verify the effectiveness of a brief group intervention that combines stress management psycho-education and physical activity (ie, independent variable) intervention in reducing fatigue and improving energy level, quality of life (mental and physical), fitness (VO 2submax), and emotional distress (ie, dependent variables) in breast cancer survivors. This study applied Lazarus and Folkman stress-coping theoretical framework, as well as Salmon's unifying theory of physical activity. Eighty-seven French-speaking women who had completed their treatments for nonmetastatic breast cancer at a university hospital in Quebec City, Canada, were randomly assigned to either the group intervention (experimental) or the usual-care (control) condition. Data were collected at baseline, postintervention, and at 3-month follow-up. The 4-week group intervention was cofacilitated by 2 nurses. Results showed that participants in the intervention group showed greater improvement in fatigue, energy level, and emotional distress at 3-month follow-up, and physical quality of life at postintervention, compared with the participants in the control group. These results suggest that a brief psycho-educational group intervention focusing on active coping strategies and physical activity is beneficial to cancer survivors after breast cancer treatments.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".