MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115763726 · doi:10.1177/1049732312470567

Cancer Patients’ Experiences of the Early Phase of Individual Counseling in an Outpatient Psycho-Oncology Setting

2012· article· en· W2115763726 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cheryl Nekolaichuk, Jill Turner, Kate Collie, Ceinwen E. Cumming, AUDREY M. STEVENSON

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychosocialDistressCoping (psychology)Psycho-oncologyMedicineFocus groupQuality of life (healthcare)Clinical psychologyPsychotherapistPsychologyFamily medicineNursingPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Distress is a common and substantive problem associated with the invasive nature of cancer. Psychosocial interventions can alleviate distress and enhance quality of life, with a wealth of research demonstrating benefits of group interventions. Less is known, however, about the value of individual psychological counseling for cancer patients. The goal of our study was to understand patients' experiences of attending an individual psycho-oncology counseling service in a comprehensive cancer center in Canada. We conducted six focus groups to ask patients about their perceived benefits of the early phase of counseling. The 23 participants were predominantly women living in urban areas who sought counseling for emotional and coping difficulties. Using inductive analysis, we identified four interrelated themes: distress and need for support, challenges to service access, service benefits, and the therapeutic encounter. The therapeutic encounter formed a core component of patients' experiences, highlighting the benefits of specific therapeutic interventions and processes.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.742

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.375
GPT teacher head0.615
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207