Feasibility study of a telehealth delivered, psychoeducational support group for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the feasibility and efficacy of a telehealth delivered psychoeducational support group for allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant (AHSCT) survivors. METHODS: All AHSCT survivors 0-3 years post-transplant from the Tom Baker Cancer Centre, Calgary, Alta., Canada were contacted over a 4-year period and invited to participate. Groups were led by trained facilitators and the didactic content included many of the concerns commonly reported by AHSCT survivors. Participants met with facilitators and other group members via videoconferencing equipment located at various community health centres across Alberta, British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. RESULTS: Of the 19 AHSCT survivors who chose to participate, 74% attended five or more of the six sessions and 100% stated that they were satisfied with the program. The groups were found to be feasible and well liked by all participants. While participants appeared to have gained a greater appreciation of life, they did not demonstrate any significant improvements in quality of life, spirituality and meaning making, distress, or positive growth as measured by the questionnaires in the pre/post-package. CONCLUSIONS: Attendance and satisfaction ratings suggest that participants gleaned some benefit from participation. Psychoeducational support groups via videoconferencing may provide a viable alternative for those with limited access to psychosocial support. Clearly, more rigorous research is required to determine the utility of these psychoeducational support groups.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".