The relevance of experiential avoidance in breast cancer distress: insights from a psychological group intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Research on the implication of experiential avoidance in the aetiology and maintenance of diverse forms of psychopathology has grown considerably over the last 10 years. However, the potential contribution of experiential avoidance to cancer-related distress has received limited attention. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to examine the association between experiential avoidance, symptoms of anxiety and depression, and quality of life (QoL) during the course of a psychological group intervention for women with breast cancer. METHODS: Fifty-four women with breast cancer participated in a psychological group intervention designed to reduce distress and improve QoL. Participants completed measures of experiential avoidance, anxiety and depressive symptoms, and QoL upon the first and last sessions. RESULTS: A path analysis revealed that, after controlling for baseline measures, smaller reductions in experiential avoidance during the course of the intervention predicted smaller reductions in anxiety and depressive symptoms. Also, experiential avoidance had a negative indirect effect on QoL via depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Experiential avoidance may perpetuate the emotional problems commonly found in women with breast cancer and attenuate improvements associated with participation in psychological interventions. Implications for clinical practice in psycho-oncology are discussed. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".