MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2408203670 · doi:10.1002/pon.4150

Randomized‐controlled trial of mindfulness‐based cancer recovery versus supportive expressive group therapy among distressed breast cancer survivors (MINDSET): long‐term follow‐up results

2016· article· en· W2408203670 on OpenAlexafffund
Linda E. Carlson, Rie Tamagawa, Joanne Stephen, Elaine Drysdale, Lihong Zhong, Michael Speca

Bibliographic record

VenuePsycho-Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyAlberta Cancer FoundationUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Breast Cancer Research AllianceAlberta Cancer Foundation
KeywordsBreast cancerRandomized controlled trialMindsetMindfulnessMedicinePsychotherapistGroup psychotherapyTerm (time)CancerClinical psychologyOncologyPsychologyPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based cancer recovery (MBCR) and supportive expressive group therapy (SET) are two well-validated psychosocial interventions, but they have not been directly compared, and little is known about long-term outcomes. This comparative effectiveness study measured the effects of these two interventions immediately following the groups and for 1 year thereafter in distressed breast cancer survivors. METHODS: Two hundred fifty-two distressed Stage I-III breast cancer survivors were randomized into either MBCR or SET. Women completed questionnaires addressing mood, stress symptoms, quality of life, social support, spirituality and post-traumatic growth before and after the interventions, and 6 and 12 months later. RESULTS: Immediately following the intervention, women in MBCR reported greater reduction in mood disturbance (primarily fatigue, anxiety and confusion) and stress symptoms including tension, sympathetic arousal and cognitive symptoms than those in SET. They also reported increased emotional and functional quality of life, emotional, affective and positive social support, spirituality (feelings of peace and meaning in life) and post-traumatic growth (appreciation for life and ability to see new possibilities) relative to those in SET, who also improved to a lesser degree on many outcomes. Effect sizes of the time × group interactions were small to medium, and most benefits were maintained over 12 months of follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: This study is the first and largest to demonstrate sustained benefits of MBCR in distressed breast cancer survivors relative to an active control. MBCR was superior to SET for improving psychological well-being with lasting benefits over 1 year, suggesting these women gained long-lasting and efficacious tools to cope with cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on clinicaltrials.gov number NCT00390169, October 2006. 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations165
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsycho-OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207