Meaning-Centered Group Psychotherapy: An Effective Intervention for Improving Psychological Well-Being in Patients With Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To test the efficacy of meaning-centered group psychotherapy (MCGP) to reduce psychological distress and improve spiritual well-being in patients with advanced or terminal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with advanced cancer (N = 253) were randomly assigned to manualized eight-session interventions of either MCGP or supportive group psychotherapy (SGP). Patients were assessed before and after completing the treatment and 2 months after treatment. The primary outcome measures were spiritual well-being and overall quality of life, with secondary outcome measures assessing depression, hopelessness, desire for hastened death, anxiety, and physical symptom distress. RESULTS: Hierarchical linear models that included a priori covariates and only participants who attended ≥ three sessions indicated a significant group × time interaction for most outcome variables. Specifically, patients receiving MCGP showed significantly greater improvement in spiritual well-being and quality of life and significantly greater reductions in depression, hopelessness, desire for hastened death, and physical symptom distress compared with those receiving SGP. No group differences were observed for changes in anxiety. Analyses that included all patients, regardless of whether they attended any treatment sessions (ie, intent-to-treat analyses), and no covariates still showed significant treatment effects (ie, greater benefit for patients receiving MCGP v SGP) for quality of life, depression, and hopelessness but not for other outcome variables. CONCLUSION: This large randomized controlled study provides strong support for the efficacy of MCGP as a treatment for psychological and existential or spiritual distress in patients with advanced cancer.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".