MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2579633417 · doi:10.1080/0284186x.2016.1268713

Clinical and psychological moderators of the effect of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy on persistent pain in women treated for primary breast cancer – explorative analyses from a randomized controlled trial

2017· article· en· W2579633417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Maja Johannsen, Mia Skytte O’Toole, Maja O’Connor, Anders Bonde Jensen, Robert Zachariae

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Oncologica · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRigshospitaletKræftens BekæmpelseAase og Ejnar Danielsens FondEinar Willumsen Foundation
KeywordsMedicineMindfulnessRandomized controlled trialBreast cancerCognitionPhysical therapyCancerClinical psychologyPsychotherapistInternal medicineOncologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness-based intervention has been found efficacious in reducing persistent pain in women treated for breast cancer. Little, however, is known about possible moderators of the effect. We explored clinical and psychological moderators of the effect on pain intensity previously found in a randomized controlled trial of mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) with women treated for breast cancer with persistent pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 129 women treated for breast cancer reporting persistent pain were randomized to MBCT or a wait-list control. The primary outcome of pain intensity (11-point numeric rating scale) was measured at baseline, post-intervention, three, and six months follow-up. Proposed clinical moderators included age, axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), radiotherapy, and endocrine treatment. Psychological moderators included psychological distress [the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)], the adult attachment dimensions anxiety and avoidance [the Experiences in Close Relationships Short Form (the ECR-SF)], and alexithymia [the Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS-20)]. Multi-level models were used to test moderation effects over time, i.e. time × group × moderator. RESULTS: Only attachment avoidance (p = 0.03, d = 0.36) emerged as a statistically significant moderator. Higher levels of attachment avoidance predicted a larger effect of MBCT in reducing pain intensity compared with lower levels attachment avoidance. None of the remaining psychological or clinical moderators reached statistical significance. However, based on the effect size, radiotherapy (p = 0.075, d = 0.49) was indicated as a possible clinical moderator of the effect, with radiotherapy being associated with a smaller effect of MBCT on pain intensity over time compared with no radiotherapy. CONCLUSION: Attachment avoidance, and potentially radiotherapy, may be clinically relevant factors for identifying the patients who may benefit most from MBCT as a pain intervention. Due to the exploratory nature of the analyses, the results 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 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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.008
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.335 · 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

Citations31
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OncologicaSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207