Investigating the Impact of Consultation Based on Acceptance and Commitment to Reduce Anger in Children and Adolescents with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-pharmacological approaches such as the cognitive-behavioral strategies and pathological information do not treat the underlying pain and do not change pain perception but somehow reduce the emotional responses to the pain. In this regard, the study has examined the effect of consulting to reduce the anger based on acceptance and commitment between children and adolescents with cancer. This study is a semi-experimental and research project, pre-test and post-test with control and follow-up period. The study sample was included all 242 children with cancer admitted in Seydoshohada Hospital of Isfahan province in 2014. The number of 30 subjects is selected among the population including 15 experimental and 15 control groups. To collect information a demographic questionnaire is used and the Nilsson anger questionnaire (2000) is used to analyze the data by the SPSS Software. The results show that the effect of counseling on anger component changes in children with cancer is statistically significant. This means that the consulting in the form of acceptance and commitment leads to reduce the signs of anger in children with cancer (0.01> P). For this reason and given the results of the study the hypothesis was proved.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".