MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2470099850 · doi:10.1200/jco.2015.65.0770

Efficacy of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy on Late Post-Treatment Pain in Women Treated for Primary Breast Cancer: A Randomized Controlled Trial

2016· article· en· W2470099850 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maja Johannsen, Maja O’Connor, Mia Skytte O’Toole, Anders Bonde Jensen, Inger Højris, Robert Zachariae

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRigshospitaletAmerican Society of Clinical Oncology
KeywordsMedicineRandomized controlled trialBreast cancerMindfulnessMindfulness-based cognitive therapyCognitionInternal medicineOncologyPhysical therapyCognitive therapyCancerPsychiatryClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the efficacy of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) for late post-treatment pain in women treated for primary breast cancer. METHODS: A randomized wait list-controlled trial was conducted with 129 women treated for breast cancer reporting post-treatment pain (score ≥ 3 on pain intensity or pain burden assessed with 10-point numeric rating scales). Participants were randomly assigned to a manualized 8-week MBCT program or a wait-list control group. Pain was the primary outcome and was assessed with the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire 2 (SF-MPQ-2), the Present Pain Intensity subscale (the McGill Pain Questionnaire), and perceived pain intensity and pain burden (numeric rating scales). Secondary outcomes were quality of life (World Health Organization-5 Well-Being Index), psychological distress (the Hospital Depression and Anxiety Scale), and self-reported use of pain medication. All outcome measures were assessed at baseline, postintervention, and 3-month and 6-month follow-up. Treatment effects were evaluated with mixed linear models. RESULTS: Statistically significant time × group interactions were found for pain intensity (d = 0.61; P = .002), the Present Pain Intensity subscale (d = 0.26; P = .026), the SF-MPQ-2 neuropathic pain subscale (d = 0.24; P = .036), and SF-MPQ-2 total scores (d = 0.23; P = .036). Only pain intensity remained statistically significant after correction for multiple comparisons. Statistically significant effects were also observed for quality of life (d = 0.42; P = .028) and nonprescription pain medication use (d = 0.40; P = .038). None of the remaining outcomes reached statistical significance. CONCLUSION: MBCT showed a statistically significant, robust, and durable effect on pain intensity, indicating that MBCT may be an efficacious pain rehabilitation strategy for women treated for breast cancer. In addition, the effect on neuropathic pain, a pain type reported by women treated for breast cancer, further suggests the potential of MBCT but should be considered preliminary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.420
Threshold uncertainty score0.740

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations157
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207