Acceptability of Bibliotherapy for Patients With Cancer: A Qualitative, Descriptive Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To determine the acceptability of a self-help workbook, Mastering the Art of Coping in Good Times and Bad, for patients with cancer. . RESEARCH APPROACH: Descriptive, qualitative. . SETTING: Participants were recruited from the psychosocial support cancer centers of two tertiary care teaching hospitals in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. . PARTICIPANTS: 18 individuals diagnosed with cancer. . METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: A semistructured interview guide with open-ended questions was used to gather feedback from participants about the workbook. . FINDINGS: 18 participants completed the interviews from which the data emerged. Two main categories were identified from the respondents' interviews regarding the acceptability of the workbook. The first category focuses on content, whereas the other focuses on recommendations. Interviewees specified the following content as most helpful. CONCLUSIONS: Bibliotherapy gives patients access to knowledge to help them cope and engage in their own self-management. The workbook Mastering the Art of Coping in Good Times and Bad may be an acceptable means of helping them manage their stress. . INTERPRETATION: Bibliotherapy is not only cost-effective and easy to administer but also an acceptable minimal intervention.
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".