Study of the Effectiveness of the Cognitive Behavioral Therapy on Self Efficacy and Pain among Children Suffering from Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study is to investigate the effectiveness of the cognitive behavioral therapy on pain reduction and the elevation of self efficacy among children who suffer from cancer. METHOD: The present study adopts a quasi experimental pretest-posttest two group design .The research population consists of all 9-11 year old children with cancer who admitted to Tehran specialized cancer treatment centers in 2015. From those eligible in this study 40 were selected at hand and were randomly divided to two experimental and control groups (20 for experimental group and 20 for control group). Kuris self-efficacy questionnaire and Oucher pain scale were employed for data collection and multivariate and single-variant analyses of covariance have been used for data analysis. RESULTS: The results showed that the cognitive behavioral therapy has resulted in ease of pain and rise of efficacy among the experimental group (P˂ 0.01). CONCLUSION: Based on findings it can be deduced that cognitive behavioral therapy has a significant impact on this group of patients and this treatment can be employed as an appropriate solution in order to reduce the symptoms of children with cancer and ultimately to treat cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".