Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM): A qualitative study of a brief individual psychotherapy for individuals with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although psychosocial care has been regarded as central to palliative and supportive care, there have been few empirically tested approaches to individual intervention. AIM: The subjective experience of advanced cancer patients receiving a new manualized brief individual psychotherapy, referred to as Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully (CALM), was examined prior to the initiation of a randomized controlled trial testing the effectiveness of this intervention. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with patients who had a diagnosis of advanced cancer, and who underwent the intervention. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Patients were recruited from a large urban regional cancer center in Toronto, Canada. The 10 interviewees included seven women and three men. All had completed between three to six CALM sessions prior to the interview. RESULTS: The CALM intervention was associated with profound and unique patient-identified benefits and no patient-identified risks or concerns. Five interrelated benefits of the intervention were identified: (1) a safe place to process the experience of advanced cancer; (2) permission to talk about death and dying; (3) assistance in managing the illness and navigating the healthcare system; (4) resolution of relational strain; and (5) an opportunity to 'be seen as a whole person' within the healthcare system. These benefits were regarded by participants as unique in their cancer journey. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from a qualitative study suggest that the CALM intervention provides substantial benefits for patients with advanced cancer prior to the end of life. Findings informed the development of a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of this intervention.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".