Problem‐focussed interactive telephone therapy for cancer patients: a phase II feasibility trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to evaluate Problem-Focussed Interactive Telephone Therapy, an individual psychological therapy based on cognitive-behavioural therapy adapted for telephone delivery to cancer patients with high psychological needs. METHODS: A non-randomised, within-group prospective design was used. Outcome measures pre-therapy and post-therapy included were as follows: Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale: helpless/hopeless sub-scale only, Checklist of Cancer Concerns, Cancer Coping Questionnaire and EQ-5D quality of life. A study-specific Service Evaluation Questionnaire was included. Eligible patients were either (i) offered out-patient screening for anxiety/depression/helplessness (n=649) or (ii) referred for psychological care by oncology clinicians (n=160). RESULTS: Thirty two percent (36/114) of screen-identified cases and 22% (35/160) of referred patients participated, and 42 were available for analysis. There were significant post-therapy improvements in Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety (p=0.002) and depression (p=0.003), Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale helpless/hopeless (p=0.036), cancer concerns (p=0.005) and overall quality of life (p=0.048). Overall, 81% (34/42) of participants were defined as clinical cases at baseline and 32% were no longer cases post-therapy. There were significant improvements in coping consistent with the therapy method. CONCLUSIONS: A minority of symptomatic patients opt for telephone psychological therapy; however, where they do, there are significant improvements indicating that telephone-delivered therapy is feasible in patients with high needs. Findings are discussed in relation to current issues on the implementation of distress screening and psychological therapy provision within clinical settings.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".