Effects of a Multiple Health Behavior Change Intervention for Colorectal Cancer Survivors on Psychosocial Outcomes and Quality of Life: a Randomized Controlled Trial
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multiple health behavior change can ameliorate adverse effects of cancer. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of a multiple health behavior change intervention (CanChange) for colorectal cancer survivors on psychosocial outcomes and quality of life. METHODS: A total of 410 colorectal cancer survivors were randomized to a 6-month telephone-based health coaching intervention (11 sessions using acceptance and commitment therapy strategies focusing on physical activity, weight management, diet, alcohol, and smoking) or usual care. Posttraumatic growth, spirituality, acceptance, mindfulness, distress, and quality of life were assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Significant intervention effects were observed for posttraumatic growth at 6 (7.5, p < 0.001) and 12 months (4.1, p = 0.033), spirituality at 6 months (1.8, p = 0.011), acceptance at 6 months (0.2, p = 0.005), and quality of life at 6 (0.8, p = 0.049) and 12 months (0.9, p = 0.037). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention improved psychosocial outcomes and quality of life (physical well-being) at 6 months with most effects still present at 12 months. ( TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12608000399392).
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 it