Tailoring Mind-Body Therapies to Individual Needs: Patients’ Program Preference and Psychological Traits as Moderators of the Effects of Mindfulness-Based Cancer Recovery and Supportive-Expressive Therapy in Distressed Breast Cancer Survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) and supportive-expressive therapy (SET) are well-validated psycho-oncological interventions, and we have previously reported health benefits of both programs. However, little is known about patients' characteristics or program preferences that may influence outcomes. Therefore, this study examined moderators of the effects of MBCR and SET on psychological well-being among breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A multi-site randomized controlled trial was conducted between 2007 and 2012 in two Canadian cities (Calgary and Vancouver). A total of 271 distressed stage I-III breast cancer survivors were randomized into MBCR, SET or a 1-day stress management seminar (SMS). Baseline measures of moderator variables included program preference, personality traits, emotional suppression, and repressive coping. Outcome measures of mood, stress symptoms, quality of life, spiritual well-being, post-traumatic growth, social support, and salivary cortisol were measured pre- and post intervention. Hierarchical regression analyses were used to assess moderator effects on outcomes. RESULTS: The most preferred program was MBCR (55%). Those who were randomized to their preference improved more over time on quality of life and spiritual well-being post-intervention regardless of the actual intervention type received. Women with greater psychological morbidity at baseline showed greater improvement in stress symptoms and quality of life if they received their preferred versus nonpreferred program. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' program preference and baseline psychological functioning, rather than personality, were predictive of program benefits. These results suggest incorporating program preference can maximize the efficacy of integrative oncology interventions, and emphasize the methodological importance of assessing and accommodating for preferences when conducting mind-body clinical trials.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".