A pilot randomised controlled trial to reduce suffering and emotional distress in patients with advanced cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A pilot trial was carried out to determine if a focussed narrative interview could alleviate the components of suffering and anxiety and depression in advanced cancer patients. INTERVENTION: Patients recruited were invited to participate in a focussed narrative interview and reflect on their perspectives on their sense of "meaning", regarding suffering and their psychological, physical, social and spiritual well being - the emphasis was on allowing the patient to tell their story. Patients were encouraged to share what resources they themselves had utilised in addition to what professional care they may have received, to maintain a sense of well being. METHOD: Patients with advanced metastatic disease were recruited from hospices in the North West of England - the only exclusion criteria were not being able to understand written and spoken English and a non cancer diagnosis. At recruitment patients were asked to complete a numerical scale for suffering; the Brief Edinburgh Depression Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), FACIT Spiritual well being questionnaire, Demographic information was collected and patients were randomised to either the intervention arm of the trial or the usual care arm of the study. Patients in both groups were invited to complete each measure at 2, 4 and 8 weeks. RESULTS: One hundred people were recruited into the study - 49 were randomised to intervention group and 51 to control group. The median age of patients was 66 years age range (31-89 years) and 68% of patients were female. At baseline the ECOG performance of 75% of patients recruited was 1 or 2. The median survival of all patients in the study was 169.5 days (range 10 days to still alive at end of study). There was no significant difference at any timepoint in scores on suffering measure between intervention group and control group. At each time point the intervention demonstrated mean improvement in scores for depression and anxiety on ESAS - the greatest changes for both depression and anxiety were seen at 4 weeks. CONCLUSION: This pilot randomised controlled trial of a focussed narrative intervention demonstrated an improvement in mean changes in scores for depression and anxiety at 2, 4, and 8 weeks. We suggest this intervention may have beneficial effects on depression and anxiety, but a larger powered trial is required to determine the full effects.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 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".