Randomized‐controlled trial of mindfulness‐based cancer recovery versus supportive expressive group therapy among distressed breast cancer survivors (MINDSET): long‐term follow‐up results
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it